Published by WESTERN ISLANDS * Boston * Los Angeles

to Jean and to him who will be vindicated

COPYRIGHT © 1968 BY ALAN STANG All Rights Reserved Published by WESTERN ISLANDS Belmont, Massachusetts 02178 Manufactured in the United States of America

160 176


AN AMERICA stripped of its independence and brought under the control of a world wide Communist state is the goal of the Communists in Russia, for the United States. It is also the goal of the Communists—hidden and unhidden— in our government and in other areas of our nation's life, all posing as good Americans while they do their Communist work. Just as Communist Alger Hiss did. Hiss represented the United States at the writing of the United Nations Charter! In studying his activities, one is forced to conclude that that world Communist state was the goal of John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower's Secretary of State, who posed as a "conservative, Republican anti-Communist." Dulles was two persons: one, an actor, played a role conceived for public consumption; the other, the real Dulles, zealous for what he saw was the real business at hand. Indeed, Dulles was a leader in the Communist scheme to infiltrate the clergy and to use religion; in the Communist scheme to revoke our Bill of Rights and substitute the phony Soviet "constitution"; and in the Communist schemes to deliver China to Mao Tse-tung and Cuba to Castro. The hard evidence of this abounds—much of it collected in this book. Consequently, the author can hardly restrain himself from some bitterness. Let the reader be prepared. Why is it important to dredge all of this up? Very simple. It is a life and death matter to see that we are not so fatefully deceived. Ever again. For it was our belief that Dulles was genuine, that he really was a conservative, Republican anti-Communist, which allowed him, as Secretary of State, to make even worse the incredible mess already arranged by the Communists with the help of his predecessor, Dean Acheson. Our belief in him allowed him to arrange major disasters for the United States and major victories for Communist Russia. Indeed, many good Americans point to Dulles as a leader in the fight against Communism. It is fatal for us to make this kind of mistake. The story of John Foster Dulles, is also the story of a highly successful scheme—which he also led—to do to the Republican Party what other agents of Communism under Wilson and F.D.R. had done to the Democratic Party: make it a vehicle for Socialism so that both Parties were controlled by one body of men—all Socialists. Here are facts we need to know—to inspire us to take our government out of the hands of our internal and external enemies, and place it in the hands of Americans, once again. 1


Logic! Logic! I don't give a damn for logic.1

Woodrow Wilson


ON JULY 26, 1858, what was to become a very unusual personage was born in Houston, Texas. His name was Edward Mandell House. And it is imperative that we know something about this man in order fully to understand John Foster Dulles. It happened that one day, when a child, House fell on his head and developed brain fever—and this irrevocably changed his life. The brain fever apparently had an interesting effect on House's mind. In due course, he developed an "urge for mastery" over people, an urge which he had previously satisfied with physical strength. Now, however, permanently weakened, he realized that he would have to resort to intellectual means.2 ". . . It pleased him to play with human beings," says Viereck, "to direct their moves as if they were kings or pawns in a game of chess. A master psychologist, he turned their emotions off and on like faucets. . . ." 3 He was a budding scientist, a social engineer: "I was a quarrelsome boy," House said of himself. "I used to like to set boys at each other to see what they would do, and then try to bring them around again." 4 And he was a specialist in playing pranks, because this gave him a chance to "feel superior." He loved to get people going, say the Georges, and then "sit back and contemplate with quiet amusement, an amusement tinged with contempt. ... It also gave him pleasure in those early days, as it did later, to be in possession of special knowledge or power and then toy with those ostensibly in control of the matter in question. To have his own competence suddenly and dazzingly revealed without the least show of bravado or self-advertisement afforded him great satisfaction. . . ." 5 2

Everything about the man was strange. ". . . Oddly enough," says Smith, "he had almost no chin—and yet no man ever lived who had a more iron will. . . ." 6 When the time came, House considered a choice of career. As the son of a wealthy planter and banker, and the heir to an income of about $25,000 a year, he could do as he liked. And as we have seen, he liked to use people, to manipulate them, to "turn their emotions on and off like faucets," because it made him "feel superior." He decided to go into politics. His poor health ruled out the strain of running for office. Moreover, he didn't want to run for office. He didn't like to make speeches. He hated routine. He preferred, he says, "the vicarious thrill which comes to me through others." What he was after was "the satisfaction of seeing my ideas carried out." 7 He decided to become, not the candidate, but the man behind the candidate, the boss, the manipulator. He wanted to pull the strings and dance the voters. "Politics is largely a question of organization," House explained. "You've got to have a good, clean feller to put before the voters. After that it's organization." 8 Between 1892 and 1902, House "elected" four Texas governors. His beneficiaries tried to reward him in the traditional way with appointment to office, but except for a promotion to Texas Colonel, House turned them down. He preferred to stay in the background and enjoy the satisfactions flowing from his urge for mastery. "Colonel House would come into the office and say a few words quietly," says a political worker, "and after he had gone you would suddenly become seized by a good idea. You would suggest that idea to your friends or superiors and be congratulated for it; it would work first-rate, beyond your wildest dreams. You might forget about it. But sometime, as sure as shooting, in cogitating pridefully over it, you would come to an abrupt realization that that idea had been oozed into your brain by Colonel House in the course of conversation." 9 He "overlooked no pertinent detail, no matter how trivial. He neglected no action, however small in itself, if it would contribute to the eventual realization of his objective. In short, the Colonel had an unusual capacity for working out detailed tactics for implementing an overall strategy." 10 Eventually, it was time for the Big Step in his overall strategy. He already had had four governors. But he wanted more. He wanted a president. 3

During the years when William Jennings Bryan was running, House stayed away. House's work in Texas had made him a power in the Democratic Party, but he disagreed with Bryan's ideas on currency, and the two were probably temperamentally mismatched. Then at last, in 1910, the way fell clear, and House carefully examined the available talent. He disqualified New York's Mayor Gaynor, among others. Then his eye fell with interest on a college president busily running for Governor of New Jersey. His name was Woodrow Wilson. Wilson appeared to be a highly promising presidential possibility. There can be no doubt that House felt a happy wiggle in his urge for mastery. He decided that Wilson would play a valuable part in his overall strategy. Behind the closed doors of the smoke-filled rooms, he began to talk Wilson. The two got together for the first time at the Gotham Hotel in New York, probably on the afternoon of November 24, 1911.11 It was smashing. "We talked and talked," said House. "We knew each other for congenial souls at the very beginning." And the next time was even better. "It was remarkable. We found ourselves in agreement upon practically every one of the issues of the day. I never met a man whose thought ran so identically with mine ... I cannot tell you how pleased I was with him. He seemed too good to be true." 12 What sort of man was this college president turned politico? An excursion into the strange mentality of Woodrow Wilson means a descent to the ninth circle of abnormal psychology. We read of a "core feeling of inadequacy, of a fundamental worthlessness which must ever be disproved"; and of "feelings of helplessness and weakness in relation to the masterful adults about him," which naturally "crippled his capacity to react objectively to matters at hand." 13 It was consequently difficult if not impossible for him to deal with other men as equals. He was overbearing. Conversation was usually an ordeal. William Alien White described his hand as "cold, stiff, moist, extended like a fish which a clerk, desiring a larger sale, casually pokes across a counter." 14 Wilson apparently decided that there was only one solution to his problem: power, the intoxicating power to order people around. Indeed, "Not only did Wilson grow up with a taste for achievement and power: he must exercise power alone. He could brook no interference. His will must prevail,

if he wished it to. He bristled at the slightest challenge to his authority. . . ." 15 He too decided to go into politics. And like all other aspiring dictators, he refused to admit that he did what he did because he wanted to do it. He claimed to move in a cloud of "altruistic service," toward "laudable social objectives," for the benefit of "the community." He continually pointed to his "selfless motivation," which of course raises the question of whose motivation he thought it was.16 The Georges explain that "Having legitimized his drive to exercise power by laborious self-preparation and by adopting worthy goals, Wilson felt free to indulge his wish to force others into immediate and complete compliance with his demands. . . ."17 Well, the Colonel looked the property over. Smith says he carefully studied the Wilsonian idiosyncrasies, defects, habits of thought and speech.18 And he naturally came to the obvious conclusion that in order to operate Wilson properly it was necessary to assure him that he 19 was one of the greatest men in all history—which House did. " . . . I do not put it too strongly when I say you are the one hope left to this torn and distracted world," he wrote to Wilson. "Without your leadership God alone knows how long we will wander in the darkness." 20 On August 5, 1914, he wrote as follows: ". . . That my life is devoted entirely to your interests, I 21 believe you know and I never cease from trying to serve you." And on January 25, 1915, when he was leaving for Europe as Wilson's agent, "I told him how much he had been to me; how I had tried all my life to find some one with whom I could work out the things I had so deeply at heart, and I had begun to despair, believing my life would be more or less a failure, when he came into it, giving me the opportunity for which I had been longing." 22 In fact, on the next day, he wrote still again: "My! How I hated to leave you last night. Around you is centered most of the interest I have left in life and my greatest joy is to serve you. Your words of affection at parting touched me so deeply that I could not tell you then, and perhaps never can tell you, just how I feel." 23 And on the day before he sails, he is still at it: "Goodbye, dear friend, and may God sustain you in all your noble undertakings. . . . You are the bravest, wisest leader, the gentlest and most gallant gentleman and the truest friend in all the world." 24

It is another revealing fact about Woodrow Wilson that he didn't find this at all embarrassing or repulsive. On the contrary, Wilson went for House like an eel for a worm: "House is my second personality; he is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one." 25 He wrote Josephus Daniels, "What I like about House is that he is the most self-effacing man that ever lived. All he wants to do is serve the common cause and to help me and others." 26 And in the summer of 1915, Wilson told House, "You are the only person in the world with whom I can discuss everything. . . . There are some I can tell one thing and others another, but you are the only one to whom I can make an entire clearance of mind." 27 Indeed, House served an invaluable purpose. He was, said Clemenceau, "the window through which light came to Wilson." 28 David Lawrence says Wilson called him his "eyes and ears."29 And House advised Wilson on his personal investments.30 Indeed, sometimes the state secrets they discussed were so profound that "the President of the United States hesitated to entrust them to the United States mails! . . ." 31 For years, the American government was located not only in the White House, where two rooms were at House's disposal in the North Wing,32 but in House's apartment in New York City. For years, he carefully played the role of the subservient adviser, the stirrup on which Wilson would mount to deeds of greatness, the friendly confidant, plastering the cracks in the Wilsonian pot. It was not an easy role. It was irritating always to have to humor the strange being in the president's chair. Indeed, much of the time when he was at the White House reciting the Divine Genius of Woodrow Wilson, he was also recording his resentment in his diary, along with the strange details of the presidential psychology. But he played it. He played it very well, because, as we have seen, he wanted "the satisfaction of seeing [his] ideas carried out." Indeed, the reason it is so important to describe the relationship between these dangerous neurotics, is to show that House wasn't just another flunky. He was, says Viereck, the "spiritual generalissimo of the Administration," the "pilot." 33 Smith speaks of his "ghostly supervision of the Governor's strategy. . . ."34 Wilson sent him on profoundly important missions without instructions.35 Bernard Baruch writes that "Colonel House's hand was in everything. At his request I employed a man in my office in


WIB [War Industrial Board]. ... I paid no particular attention to him, until one day he came to me with the confession that he had been asked by the Colonel to keep tab on me. . . . Colonel House "gradually became intoxicated by power," says Baruch. I vividly remember calling at his home during the war, to discuss some problem. ... I was astonished—and chilled—to hear him exclaim . . . 'Isn't it a thrilling thing to deal with the forces that affect the destiny of the world!' It did thrill House, and the power which he unquestionably wielded fed his sense of importance.36

Indeed, he apparently chose Wilson's cabinet.37 Franklin K. Lane, for instance, never met Wilson before the first cabinet meeting, at which time Lane had to introduce himself: "My name is Lane, Mr. President. I believe I am the Secretary of the Interior." 38 Wilson may well have been wondering who he was. And in foreign affairs, most of the appointees were friends of House, who read their letters with great care. Wilson ignored them and they did him. ". . . They knew whose hand was on the steering wheel." 39 Viereck concludes:

For all his might, Wilson could not stand alone. In every fruitful enterprise he borrowed the Colonel's brain. I shall not impute feet of clay to the idol. I concede they are living flesh. But they are not his own. Woodrow Wilson stalks through history on the feet of Edward Mandell House.40 CHAPTER ONE: WOODROW WILSON AND COLONEL HOUSE

1. Charles Callan Tansill, "The United States and the Road to War in Europe," Harry Elmer Barnes, ed., Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell, Idaho, The Caxton Printers, Ltd., 1953), p. 84. 2. Alexander L. and Juliette L. George, Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House (New York, The John Day Company, 1956), p. 79. 3. George Sylvester Viereck, The Strangest Friendship in History (New York, Liveright, Inc., Publishers, 1932), p. 23. See also George, op. cit., p. 81. 4. Arthur D. Howden Smith, Mr. House of Texas (New York, Funk & Wagnalls, 1940), p. 11. 5. George, op. cit., p. 81.

6. Smith, op. cit., p. 3. 7. Viereck, op. cit., p. 22. 8. Smith, op. cit., p. 26.

9. Ibid., p. 59. 10. George, op. cit., p. 168. 11. Viereck, op. cit., says (p. 3) they met for the first time on May 31, 1912. 12. George, op. cit., p. 93. 13. Ibid., pp. 8, 114. 14. Viereck, op. cit., p. 24. 15. George, op. cit., p. 11. 16. Ibid., pp. 116-17, 160. 17. Ibid., p. 117. 20. Ibid., p. 126. 21. Ibid., p. 125. 22. Ibid., p. 162. 23. Ibid., pp. 162-63. 24. Ibid., p. 163. 25. Viereck, op. cit., p. 26. 26. George, op. cit., p. 113. 27. Viereck, op. cit., p. 10. 28. Ibid., p. 9. 29. Ibid., p. 10. 30. Ibid., p. 11. 31. Ibid., p. 17. 32. Ibid., p. 4. 33. Viereck, loc. cit. 34. Smith, op. cit., p. 50. 35. Viereck, op. cit., p. 35. 36. Bernard M. Baruch, Baruch: York, Holt Rinehart and Winston, 37. Viereck, op. cit., p. 35. See 38. Smith, op. cit., p. 70. 39. Viereck, op. cit., pp. 48-49. p. 154. 40. Viereck, op. cit., p. 249.
18. Smith, op. cit., p. 86. 19. George, op. cit., p. 124.

The Public Years (New 1960), pp. 141-42. also Smith, op. cit., p. 78.

See also George, op. cit.,

. . . Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.1

Woodrow Wilson


WHAT WERE these ideas about which the two men agreed so thoroughly, and for the success of which Colonel House played his frustrating role? According to the New York Call presidential candidate Wilson expressed his views thus:
[Society] stands ready to attempt nothing less than a radical reconstruction, which only frank and honest counsels and the forces of generous co-operation can hold back from becoming a revolution. We are in a temper to reconstruct economic society, as we were once in a temper to reconstruct political society, and political society may itself undergo a radical modification in the process. . . .2 Of what would this radical reconstruction consist? It would be necessary to destroy our famous system of checks and balances, in which the powers of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of our government are constitutionally set against each other—as a deliberate means of preventing dictatorship:

The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. ... No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live. . . . There can be no successful government without the intimate, instinctive co-ordination of the organs of life and action. . . . Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop.3


Which raises the question of course of what then had been happening in the country since 1789. It is interesting to observe that the man who helped Wilson compile The New Freedom, his good friend William Bayard Hale, later applied for membership in the Socialist Party. Hale explained that: ". . . Both the old parties have become subservient, body and soul, to the overweening assumptions of the capitalistic classes." 4 Why would Wilson want to destroy our system of checks and balances? In his diary on September 28, 1914, for instance, House reported,

We talked much of leadership and its importance in government. He has demonstrated this to an unusual degree. He thinks our form of government can be changed by personal leadership; but I thought the Constitution should be altered, for no matter how great a leader a man was, I could see situations that would block him unless the Constitution was modified. He does' not feel as strongly about this as I do.5

Indeed, says Smith, House believed that . . . the Constitution, product of eighteenth-century minds and the quasi-classical, medieval conception of republics, was thoroughly outdated; that the country would be better off if the Constitution could be scrapped and rewritten. But as a realist he knew that this was impossible in the existing state of political education.6 House didn't explain why, if the Constitution was outdated, the law of gravity wasn't. He simply said, as we see, that the law of the land should be abolished; that our government of laws should be replaced by a government of men— one man: the Great Leader. But perhaps the best source of House's thought was a novel he published anonymously in the autumn of 1912, Philip Dru: Administrator: A Story of Tomorrow. Our hero is a graduate of West Point, class of 1920, and Dru is worried: . . . He saw many of the civil institutions of his country debased by the power of wealth under the thin guise of the constitutional protection of property. He saw the Army which he had sworn to serve faithfully becoming prostituted by this same power, and used at times for purposes of intimidation and petty conquests where the interests of wealth were at stake. He saw the great city where luxury, 10

dominant and defiant, existed largely by grace of exploitation—exploitation of men, women and children.7
It is important to remember that the country Dru is so worried about isn't Czarist Russia, but our own United States. The cause of the problem, he says, is selfishness, and the solution, he says, is that: . . . The strong will help the weak, the rich will share with the poor, and it will not be called charity, but it will be known as justice. And the man or woman who fails to do his duty, not as he sees it, but as society at large sees it, will be held up to the contempt of mankind. . . .8

House begins to make himself clear. Everybody will share everything with everybody, and it will be known as justice, or more likely, "social justice." Somebody else will decide your duty and you will decide somebody else's—as on a collective farm. And all violators will be held up to the contempt of mankind—as in a self-criticism session conducted by Mao Tse-tung. Indeed, says Dru, all we need is the proper psychological preparation. Then
the world will find but little difficulty in attaining a certain measure of altruism. I agree with you that this much-to-be desired state of society cannot be altogether reached by laws, however drastic. Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx cannot be entirely brought about by a comprehensive system of state ownership and by the leveling of wealth. . . .9

Observe, Edward Mandell House—with whom Wilson was "in agreement upon practically every one of the issues of the day"—is after a comprehensive system of state ownership and the leveling of the wealth! What he is after, indeed, is "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx"—he says so himself—which would make him, would it not, a Marxian Socialist. Dru abandons his promising military career and goes to live in a tenement district. He wants fully to understand poverty, to squat right down in it. And the heroine, Gloria, goes along to become a settlement worker. She wants a good snoutful of poverty, too. But Dru now gets a whale of an idea: Well, Gloria, so far as your work alone is concerned, there is something better that you can do if you will. The most 11

important things to be done now are not amongst the poor but amongst the rich. There is where you may become a forceful missionary for good. All of us can reach the poor, for they welcome us, but there are only a few who think like you, who can reach the rich and powerful.

Let that be your field of endeavor. Do your work gently
and with moderation, so that some at least may listen. If we would convince and convert, we must veil our thoughts and curb our enthusiasm, so that those we would influence will think us reasonable.10 Let's remember this. The comrades would work not only among the poor, but among the rich. And they would work gently and with moderation, veil their thoughts and curb their outward display of enthusiasm, to give the impression that they are reasonable—when all along of course, they aren't. They won't say that what they're after is nothing but Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx. They'll say it's something else—like the "New Freedom." So off to work they go, the situation naturally degenerates into civil war, and Dru, who as chance would have it is also a military genius, leads the proletarian forces to victory. The people, we read, are in a quiver of excitement. "They recognized the fact that Dru dominated the situation and that a master mind had at last arisen in the Republic. . . ." 11 Dru does what any master mind would do and announces
his purpose of assuming the powers of a dictator, distasteful as it was to him, and, as he felt it might also be, to the people. He explained that such a radical step was necessary, in order to quickly purge the Government of those abuses that had arisen, and give to it the form and purpose for which they had fought. They were assured that he was free from any personal ambition, and he pledged his honor to retire after the contemplated reforms had been made, so

that the country could again have a constitutional government. . . .12
Dru proposes, in short, a "dictatorship of the proletariat," as Marx had put it, which would do its work and then "wither away," as Marx had also put it. This of course is no surprise at all, since Dru (House), as we have seen, is a practicing Marxist. Indeed, Dru now becomes Administrator of the Republic —dictator—and reorganizes the country along Marxist lines. The Administrator further directed the tax board to

work out a graduated income tax exempting no income 12

whatsoever. . . . The tax on incomes of more than twenty thousand dollars a year, Dru directed, was to be rapidly increased, until a maximum of seventy per cent was to be reached on those incomes that were ten million dollars, or above.13 The graduated income tax was of course one of the ten innovations demanded by Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto, as essential in the construction of a Socialist society.

. . . The board was further instructed to incorporate in their tax measure, an inheritance tax clause, graduated at the same rate as in the income tax, and to safeguard the defrauding of the Goverment by gifts before death and other devices.14
Marx also demanded an inheritance tax. Dru decided that the central government should "take upon itself some of the functions heretofore exclusively within the jurisdiction of the States. . . ." 15 Because of course the dictatorship of the proletariat, like any dictatorship, requires that the power be completely centralized. Dru made a new banking law "affording a flexible currency, bottomed largely upon commercial assets, the real wealth of the nation, instead of upon debt, as formerly" 16 Marx, in his Communist Manifesto, had demanded the very same thing: government control of credit.

Under the new law, as Dru outlined it, one company might control another, but it would have to be with the consent of both the state and federal officials having jurisdiction in the premises, and it would have to be clear that the public would be benefited thereby. . . .17

Because of course Marx demanded government control of industry. Indeed,
Certain of the public service corporations, Dru insisted, should be taken over bodily by the National Government and accordingly the Postmaster General was instructed to negotiate with the telegraph and telephone companies for their properties at a fair valuation. . . .18 But perhaps the most fascinating section of House's book is his description of a "conspiracy"—the word is his—by means of which the U.S. Government is secretly captured by a character called Senator Selwyn, who later becomes Dru's closest friend. Selwyn, we are told, 13

had a marvelous aptitude for political manipulation and organization, and he forged a subtle chain with which to hold in subjection the natural impulses of the people. His plan was simple, but behind it was the cunning of a mind that had never known defeat. . . .19
He goes first to one John Thor, "the high priest of finance," and unfolds his plan, "explaining how essential was secrecy. It was agreed between them that it should be known to the two of them only."20 Thor got together a thousand millionaires, each of whom contributed ten thousand dollars, and gave the resulting ten million to Selwyn, who went to work to "mislead those that could be misled, and to debauch the weak and uncertain." It worked. By means of "deception regarding his real opinions and intentions," the conspirators actually elected a president.21 It was an interesting technique. Dru is particularly fascinated with the fact that the conspiracy "had insinuated itself into the primaries, in order that no candidates might be nominated whose views were not in accord with theirs." 22 Indeed, Selwyn's control seems fairly complete: Newspapers were subsidized in ways they scarcely recognized themselves. Honest officials who were in the way were removed by offering them places vastly more remunerative, and in this manner he built up a strong, intelligent and well constructed machine. It was done so sanely and so quietly that no one suspected the master mind behind it all. Selwyn was responsible to no one, took no one into his confidence, and was therefore in no danger of betrayal.23

These are the plans and ideas of the man—House—who for six years was running the United States. But an important question at once arises: Anything written by a man as influential as Colonel House would of course be of great historical interest. But could it be that we are making far too much out of Philip Dru? How much historical right do we have to place so much emphasis on a bad novel? There are two good reasons. First, House didn't think of Dru as just another novel. "Whatever the literary merits of 'Philip Dru,' " says Seymour, "it gives us an insight into the main political and social principles that actuated House in his companionship with President Wilson. . . ." 24 Indeed, Viereck says House "admits that it formulates his ethical and political faith." Philip Dru is House's daydream. 14

. . . He sees himself in his hero. Philip Dru is what he himself would like to have been. Every act in his career, every letter, every word of advice that passed from him to Woodrow Wilson was consistent with the ideas enunciated by Philip Dru. We may or may not agree with his philosophy and his conclusions, but we cannot deny his fidelity to his ideal... .25

And the Georges point to a letter House wrote in 1915, at a time when he was still trying to conceal his authorship:

I am sending you the book of which I spoke. ... It was written by a man I know. . . . My friend—whose name is not to be mentioned—told me ... that Philip was all that he himself would like to be but was not.26 Dru, the Georges remind us, was absolute dictator of the United States. And second, Dru unfortunately is not just the frustrated raving of some unfortunate psychotic. Many people were struck with wonder at the time, that so much recommended in the book was actually brought to pass. "As time goes on the interest in it becomes more intense," wrote an enterprising bookseller, "due to the fact that so many of the ideas expressed by 'Philip Dru: Administrator,' have become laws of this Republic, and so many of his ideas have been discussed as becoming laws."27 And Viereck writes,
. . . Out of this book have come the directives which revolutionized our lives. The Wilson Administration transferred the Colonel's ideas from the pages of fiction to the pages of history. . . . It is the secret code which, once understood, illuminates the minds of the Duumvirs.28 [Italics added]

"All that book has said should be comes about," wrote Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane. "The President comes to Philip Dru in the end." 29 And Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan made the same observation.30 As we have seen, one of the things inevitably demanded by House-Dru, a Marxist, was the same graduated income tax demanded in the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. It was, of course, the House-Wilson Administration which imposed that very tax on free Americans. As you will remember, the Founding Fathers started our War for Independence not so much because they minded 15

being Englishmen—but because they minded very much paying George the Third's tax. House-Dru also demanded the inheritance tax demanded by Marx in the Communist Manifesto. So House-Wilson imposed it. House-Dru decreed that the government should control business and industry, as Marx recommended. House-Wilson installed the Federal Trade Commission. You will remember that House-Dru made a new banking law "affording a flexible currency," which meant, of course, that the value of the money could change whenever the financial muscle men felt like flexing it—probably because Marx, who was, of all things, a Marxist, had demanded government control of credit. So House-Wilson installed the Federal Reserve System in 1913, which gave control over credit to a bunch of government bankers. House-Marx was of course instrumental in the formation and passage of the Act.31 Indeed, says Smith, Wilson as usual had adopted the idea "largely at his suggestion." And: In the selection of the First Federal Reserve Board Mr. House's part was as important as in the selection of the Cabinet. All of the five men appointed were chosen jointly by himself and the President, with most of the initiative in his [House's] hands. . . .32

And this brings us to by far the strangest of all the strange things we have so far read. For it seems that "the Colonel was not without friends in the dwelling of Mammon. His feelers were everywhere, even in that sublime region where the Bakers spoke only to Morgans, and the Morgans spoke only to God!" Indeed, at a dinner arranged by banker J. Horace Harding for a bunch of financiers, House
convinced the financial overlords that the Democratic donkey, with Wilson in the saddle, would not kick over the traces. House did not disguise or conceal from Mr. Harding's guests Wilson's desire to accomplish certain financial reforms along sound principles accepted by the bankers themselves. The Colonel's words smoothed the turbulent waters. The stock market, which had registered a fever, subsided, and the panic which had been predicted after Wilson's inauguration remained where it was, on the knees 16

of the gods. The Schiffs, the Warburgs, the Kahns, the Rockefellers, the Morgans put their faith in House. . . .33 (Italics added)

Strange, is it not? In fact, it's downright uncanny. For what Colonel House was imposing on the United States, as we have seen, was nothing else but the demands of the Communist Manifesto, the principles of Marxian Socialism and government controls. And real bankers and financiers, like all other real businessmen, are of course unalterably opposed to Marxian Socialism. They are opposed, says Marxian Socialist theory, because they are "capitalist oppressors" trying to keep control—and because Marxian Socialism, on the other hand, is a "revolutionary force" led by "oppressed people," who "rise up" for "freedom." Why, then, would the Schiffs, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers and the Kahns eagerly embrace Marxian Socialism? This question deserves discussion, and we will come to that below. But now it is time to mention House's most famous scheme, which lay of course in the field of international affairs. House-Marx dedicated Dru "to the unhappy many who have lived and died lacking opportunity, because, in the starting, the world-wide social structure was wrongly begun." And House-Dru divided the world into spheres of influence. Germany got South America and Asia Minor. England got Africa. We got Canada and Japan got China. It was neat as could be. But as we have seen, House-Dru devoted himself mostly to domestic matters—other than a few mystifying references: . . . Sometimes in his day dreams, Dru thought of Russia in its vastness, of the ignorance and hopeless outlook of the people, and wondered when her deliverance would come. There was he knew, great work for someone to do in that despotic land.34

Remember that the book was published in 1912. And as chance would have it:
he was learning with Gloria the language of the Slavs at odd moments during the closing months of his administration. Gloria wondered why he was so intent upon learning this language, and why he wanted her also to know it, but she no longer questioned him, for experience had taught 17

her that he would tell her when he was ready for her to know.35 When the time comes, they sail off into the sunset—west from San Francisco. (We finally get rid of them!) It is interesting to observe that sailing west from San Francisco, with a knowledge of Russian, your best port of call would be Vladivostok. Whatever it all meant, it was certainly part of House's plan for the entire world, which also included a "league of nations," to coin a phrase! This of course would be expected, would it not, since all Marxian Socialists, such as Colonel House, are internationalists, and dream of victory in terms of one global Socialist state. It was Marx, a Marxist, who said in the Communist Manifesto, "Workers of the world, unite!" House entered the presidency with this very idea.36 Indeed, it was one of the reasons he chose Wilson for the job.37 Wilson believed, for instance, that as in personal relations so in international relations, there was something contemptible about working primarily to protect one's own country,38 an attitude which would of course come in handy in a campaign to replace national sovereignty with one Socialist world. The only trouble was that Wilson was highly uninterested in international affairs. He was less interested in socializing the world than he was in playing Great Leader of the American people.39 So House went to work to change his mind.40 He began to promise Immortal Deeds and Great Achievement. He told Wilson that the First World War could be his big chance. All through the long period of our neutrality, he sold him on the spiritual dividends of World Organization.41 And Woodrow Wilson finally bought the idea. He began to see, in a league of nations, still additional demonstrations of the Sublime Greatness of Woodrow Wilson.42 It was House who wrote the first draft of the Covenant of the League.43 He it was who so christened it.44 Indeed, writes Ray Stannard Baker, Wilson's official biographer, "practically nothing—not a single idea—in the Covenant of the League was original with the President. His relation to it was mainly that of editor or compiler. . . ." 45 House's plan, in short, with minor variations, was the one laid before the Peace Conference in Paris by Woodrow Wilson. It was a highly original idea; indeed, says Seymour, "to some it might seem to threaten the creation of a super-state: he added a secretariat and a permanent international court; 18

he regarded the assembly of delegates as a sort of permanent world-parliament" 46—and this, of course, would mean the destruction as an independent entity of the United States. At the same time, House got together a band of sympathetic intellectuals, which later came to be called the Inquiry and was assigned to inquire into the facts of the various international matters, and help to formulate the Colonel's plans. It was upon the work of the Inquiry, for instance, that Wilson drew, in his preparation of the famous Fourteen Points to save the world. It operated almost entirely apart from the Department of State, and was in effect Colonel House's general staff. They were a highly talented group of Inquisitors. Sidney Mezes. House's brother-in-law and president of the City College of New York, was named director. James T. Shotwell was in charge of historical geography and then of the library. There was Christian A. Herter, later to become Secretary of State, and Norman Thomas, a Marxian Socialist. And the secretary was a gentleman named Walter Lippmann. 47 Lippmann, it seems, was highly influential. Sir William Wiseman, chief of British intelligence in Washington during the war, wrote his impression "that Lippmann furnished the abstract ideas which found their way into a good many of the memoranda of the American Delegation and ultimately into some of President Wilson's public speeches. . . ." 48 The ideas he was furnishing were Marxist ideas, since Lippmann was also a Marxian Socialist, and one of the leading members of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, founded in 1905, and dedicated to the destruction of the United States.49 And then there were a couple of brothers, enterprising chaps—Alien Welsh Dulles and John Foster Dulles.50 Lippmann and Foster became fast friends. Over the years they got together often. They had much in common. During the war, Dulles also worked at the War Trade Board under Vance McCormick, who previously had been selected by House as chairman of the Democratic National Committee.51 " . . . I knew Mr. Wilson well," says John Foster Dulles. "He was my professor and my college President when I was a student at Princeton. . . . Early in 1917, President Wilson sent me to Panama. ... I was closely associated with him at Washington, during the First World War. . . ." 52 "Wilson was an influence upon him all his life," his sister explains.53


Finally, House developed the opinion, with the expert assistance of Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Minister, and no mean phrenologist himself, that he could exert greater influence on the desired result if America, instead of acting as mediator, actually got into the war itself. There wasn't the slightest reason in the world—not even one—why the United States should have entered the First World War—unless one were planning, in the aftermath, to socialize the world. Indeed, as in the War of 1812, the British were openly bothering our shipping, to ensure the blockade of Germany, and so the problem arose of which side to be on.54 It is one of the harsh realities of war, is it not, that if you insist on being in one, you have to be on one side or the other. He chose the British. They were so well bred. And he got on so well with Sir Edward Grey. In one conference, for instance, says Colonel House, "we cheerfully divided up Turkey, both in Asia and in Europe." 55 When a delegation of women came to demand that Wilson convene a conference of neutrals at the Hague and present concrete peace proposals until something was accepted, House got rid of them in the usual way: "As usual, I got them into a controversy among themselves, which delights me. 56 And in the usual way, he developed a scheme to trick us in. The idea was to work out in collusion with the Allies their minimum demands, which the Allies would then present as theirs alone—knowing in advance that the Germans would have to turn them down. This would hang the onus for continuing the war on the Germans, and Wilson would come in on the side of the Allies.57 Even Walter Hines Page, our Ambassador to London, and a practicing anglophile, felt that the plan was highly unsavory. Said he,
Of course, the fatal moral weakness of the foregoing scheme is that we should plunge into the war, not on the merits of the cause but by a carefully sprung trick.58

But House and Wilson saw nothing amiss. Indeed, Wilson congratulated his friend when House told him about the plot. Said he, It would be impossible to imagine a more difficult task than the one placed in your hands, but you have accomplished it in a way beyond my expectations.59 20

In November 1916, while all this was going on, Wilson ran for re-election on the slogan, "He Kept Us Out of War." At last, on April 6, 1917, such foolishness over, the great day came. Wilson demanded and received a declaration of war against Germany. And the Socialists were already arranging the next step in the Plan.

1. Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (New York, Doubleday, Page & Company, 1913), pp. 13-14.

2. New York Call, October 8, 1917. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Charles Seymour, ed., The Intimate Papers of Colonel House (Boston, Houghton Miffiin Company, 1926), Vol. 1,
p. 121. 6. Arthur D. Howden Smith, Mr. House of Texas (New York, Funk & Wagnalls, 1940), p. 23. 7. Edward Mandell House, Philip Dru: Administrator: A Story of Tomorrow, 1920-1935 (New York, B. W. Huebsch, 1920), p. 3. 8. Ibid., p. 42.

9. Ibid., p. 45. 10. Ibid., p. 64. 11. Ibid., pp. 134-35. 12. Ibid., pp. 152-53. 13. Ibid., pp. 179-80. 14. Ibid., p. 180. 15. Ibid., p. 182. 16. Ibid., p. 185. 17. Ibid., pp. 189-90. 18. Ibid., p. 190. 19. Ibid., p. 67. 20. Ibid., p. 68. 21. Ibid., p. 67. 22. Ibid., p. 66. 23. Ibid., p. 87. 24. Seymour, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 156. 25. George Sylvester Viereck, The Strangest Friendship in
History (New York, Liveright, Inc., Publishers, 1932), pp. 28, 31. 26. Alexander L. and Juliette L. George, Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House (New York, The John Day Company, 1956), p. 131. 27. Seymour, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 153. See Smith, op. cit., p. 49. 21

28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

Viereck, op. cit., pp. 28, 31. Smith, op. cit., p. 50. See also Viereck, op. cit., p. 28. Viereck, op. cit., p. 28. Seymour, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 159-66. Smith, op. cit., pp. 3, 78. Viereck, op. cit., pp. 36-37. House, op. cit., p. 276.

36. Smith, op. cit., p. 101. See also Viereck, op. cit., p. 217: " . . . A League of Nations of some sort was present embryonically in the mind of the Duumvirate when Colonel House first set forth upon his great adventure in 1913." 37. Smith, op. cit., pp. 101-02. 38. George, op. cit., p. 230. 39. Ibid., pp. 158, 161. See also Smith, op. cit., p. 102; Seymour, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 294-95; Ray Stannard Baker, Woodrow Wilson; Life and Letters (Garden City, New York, Doubleday, Doran, 1935), Vol. 5, pp. 20-21, 29-30; and C. Hartley Grattan, Why We Fought (New York, Vanguard Press, 1929), p. 115. 40. Smith, op. cit., p. 102. 41. George, op. cit., pp. 161-63, 189. 42. Seymour, op. cit., Vol. 4, pp. 1-4. 43. Ibid., Vol. 4, pp. 36-37; George, op. cit., p. 209; and Viereck, op. cit., pp. 53-54. 44. Viereck, op. cit., p. 223. 45. George, op. cit., p. 210; and Viereck, op. cit., p. 218. 46. Seymour, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 37. 47. Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 171. See also Dan Smoot, The Invisible Government (Boston, Western Islands, 1965), p. 2. 48. Seymour, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 171. 49. Philip M. Crane, The Democrat's Dilemma (Chicago, Henry Regnery Company, 1964), pp. 66-67. 50. Smoot, op. cit., p. 2. 51. Smith, op. cit., pp. 192-93; and George, op. cit., p. 155. 52. Woodrow Wilson, Addresses upon the occasion of his Ninety-second Birthday Anniversary, December 28, 1948, (Stamford, Connecticut, The Overbrook Press (limited edition, 1000 copies), February, 1949), p. 7. 53. Eleanor Lansing Dulles, John Foster Dulles: The Last Year (New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1963), p. 130. See also Richard Goold-Adams, The Time of Power (London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1962), p. 26. 5.4. Grattan, op. cit., pp. 202ff., 343ff. 55. Walter Millis, Road to War (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1935), p. 270. 56. Ibid., p. 234. 57. Ibid., p. 268. 58. Loc. cit. 59. Ibid., p. 277. 22

35. Ibid., p. 295.

A Bolshevik's word is his bond. Bolsheviks are in the habit of fulfilling their pledges. . . 1

Joseph Stalin

WHILE THE Marxian Socialists were doing all this in Washington, they finally grabbed the government in Russia. Demoralized by the usual Socialist propaganda and Socialist agitation, it fell like an overripe fruit into their hands. And boatloads of comrades put out from New York, comrades such as Leon Trotsky, founder of the Red Army, who had been enjoying the benefits of Capitalism while living in the Bronx. Vladimir Ilyitch Lenin, leader of a wing of the Social

Democratic Party, was of course the Marxian Socialist in
charge, and he was interested in installing Marxian Socialism. He said it. He meant it. Everybody believed it. And he did it. A Socialist of course is a man of his word.

Like Colonel House, and many other practicing Marxian
Socialists, Lenin was a mild and unimpressive little man. Some say he even looked benign. He had dedicated his life to "humanity," as a Socialist should. When he heard about the

"revolution," he was living in Zurich in a small room over a
sausage factory. They say the smell was intense. Now what was this Marxian Socialist "revolution" about?

Well, in 1936, in its official program, the Communist International explained: . . . dictatorship can be established only by a victory of
Socialism in different countries or groups of countries,

World Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.2

after which the proletariat republics would unite on federal lines with those already in existence, and this system of federal unions would expand ... at length forming the

These Marxian Socialists, then, like all other Marxian Socialists—like the Marxian Socialists in the United States—considered themselves part of an international outfit. This is not 23

surprising. It is in fact what we expect. It is one of the basic principles of Marxian Socialism. And how will this Marxist victory be brought about? Joseph Stalin, a Marxist, tells us:

. . . Leninism has proved . . . that the road to victory of the revolution in the West lies through the revolutionary alliance with the liberation movement of the colonies and dependent countries against imperialism. . . . [He speaks of] the upholding, defence and implementation of the slogan of the right of nations to secession, to independent existence as states . . . [because] unless this slogan is implemented, the union and collaboration of nations within a single world economic system, which is the material basis for the victory of world socialism, cannot be brought about. . . .3
To translate from the Socialese: the Marxists opposed the great concentrations of power that were the British, French and German Empires. These Empires stood in their way. So the Marxists decided to break them up, by using the idea of "colonialism" and by demanding "independence"—a separate existence for the colonies. This is important, says Stalin, indeed, imperative, because without it the Marxists cannot get what they want—which he says, is Socialism. It is imperative because without it the Marxists would be unable to arrange a "single world economic system," which Stalin says is the "basis" for world Socialism. While all this is going on in the colonies, equally important work is necessary in the capitals:

The weight of emphasis in the internationalist education of the workers in the oppressing countries, says Lenin, must necessarily consist in advocating and urging them to demand freedom of secession for oppressed countries. Without this there can be no internationalism. . . .4 So while the "workers" in, say, Algeria, are demanding independence, the "workers" in Paris are being "educated" to support them. Because of course: the workers are interested in the complete amalgamation of all their comrades into a single international army, in their speedy and final emancipation from intellectual subjection to the bourgeoisie, and in the full and free develop24

ment of the intellectual forces of their brothers, whatever the nation to which they belong.5
It is important to remember that nationalism is by no means an inviolable principle. It is simply a strategy—in an organized campaign to demoralize the nations standing in the way of a Socialist world: . . . The deviation towards nationalism is dangerous because, by hindering the emancipation of the national proletariat from the ideological influence of the national bourgeoisie, it impedes the knitting of the proletarians of the various nationalities into a single internationalist organization.6

The point is that since nationalism in the colonies leads to the dissolution of the empire, it is encouraged there. But nationalism in the mother country causes the unity of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, which would prevent a proletarian revolution and strengthen the mother country. Patriotism, in short, will be encouraged in the colonies, but discouraged at home. Now what part in this internationalist organization would America play? It would play exactly the same part as every other former nation. "A Communist world will be a unified, organized world," explains William Z. Foster. The economic system will be one great organization, based upon the principle of planning now dawning in the U.S.S.R. The American Soviet government will be an important section in this world organization. . . .7
Indeed, says Stalin:

it is essential that the triumphant proletariat of the advanced countries should render aid, real and prolonged aid, to the toiling masses of the backward nationalities in their cultural and economic development; that it should help them to rise to a higher stage of development and to catch up with the more advanced nationalities. Unless such aid is forthcoming it will be impossible to bring about the peaceful co-existence and fraternal collaboration of the toilers of the various nations and peoples within a single world economic system that are so essential for the final triumph of socialism.8
Note. Aid—prolonged "foreign aid," to coin a phrase— from advanced countries like the United States, to backward 25

nationalities like Indonesia, will be necessary to bring about the final triumph of Socialism. Socialism, in fact, says Joe Stalin, who ought to know, can't come about without it. Why not? "The more backward the country," Lenin explains, ". . . the more difficult is it for her to pass from the old capitalist relations to socialist relations. To the tasks of destruction are added new, incredibly difficult tasks, viz., organizational tasks." 9 When a country is grabbed by the Marxian Socialists, there are several urgent "tasks of destruction." First, of course, there are the police. There are the country's various institutions. Then there are those benighted individuals who have no interest at all in Socialist relations—the non-Socialist type that made the American Revolution. You can't have them running around. In an advanced country, your telephone directory will tell you where to make your arrests. But in a backward country there are no directories and no telephones. People may well be nomadic. They may carry spears. It goes without saying that they have no Social Security numbers, and lack the sophistication to have understood enough Marx to have installed a graduated income tax. What you are lacking then, as Lenin says, is organization. Like any dictatorship, the dictatorship of the proletariat means organization, but you can't organize people if you don't know where they are. You can't make a dictatorship of the proletariat, if you haven't got a proletariat. And therefore, says Fabian Socialist R.H.S. Crossman:

. . . Even if the U.S.A. (which is most unlikely) provided sufficient resources for a world-wide attack on low living standards, the result in many countries would not be to contain communism, but to create more favourable conditions for social revolution. . . .10
So much for strategy. Now what about tactics?—the dayto-day methods of the grab for power. ". . . Whether this will be a peaceful transaction or not will depend on specific conditions in this or that country," says Marxist agent Nikita Khrushchev.11 Luis Corvalan, head of the Communist Party of Chile, explains that we have called upon the popular masses to take advantage of all the possibilities afforded by the peaceful way. We 26

wish to take advantage of the favorable conditions of the presidential elections in order to achieve the front rank positions of power. Obviously we do not restrict ourselves merely to this position. . . .12

His counterpart in Colombia explains as follows:
. . . The revolutionary road in our country could also turn out to be a combination of all the forms of struggle: elections and parliamentary action to sharpen the crisis of the anti-democratic system, strikes and mass demonstrations in the cities and proletarian centers; rural struggles for the land and guerrilla actions against official violence.13 And Marxist agent Che Guevara says that

The real capacity of a revolutionary is measured by his ability to find adequate revolutionary tactics in every change of situation. ... It would be an unpardonable error to underestimate the gain that a revolutionary program can make through a given electoral process. . . .14 So the American Bar Association naturally concludes,
we cannot assume that those who 'reject the violent path' are necessarily any less dangerous to us in the long run. We ignore this important issue at our own peril, for a false sense of security could lull us into an extremely dangerous situation. There is a long-standing misconception in the West that a superficially 'non-violent' method of overthrowing a government is equivalent to a 'peaceful' and 'legitimate' political change. Such is not always the case, for subversion, intimidation, and pressure from outside may cause a government to fall prey to Communism, a system providing for no future political change. . . .15

The point is that when a Marxian Socialist "rejects the violent path" it doesn't mean he is no longer a Marxian Socialist. It doesn't necessarily mean that he now favors something other than Marxian Socialism. He is more often than not, just as much a Marxian Socialist as ever. The point is—violence is only one of the many tactics the Socialists use. "Non-violence" is another. And all tactics serve the same purpose—grabbing the government and taking power. Indeed, the Marxists prefer to take power by "peaceful" means —if possible—because the property taken is undamaged. In fact, the Marxian Socialists grabbed Czechoslovakia in 27

1948, entirely by peaceful means. They surfaced in the government, where they had been hidden all the time.16 In fact, Adolf Hitler, not a Marxian, but a national Socialist, grabbed the government of Germany entirely by law. Ironically, it was entirely legal—and all wrong.

1. Joseph Stalin, Problems of Leninism (Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953), p. 448. 2. Quoted in Dan Smoot, The Invisible Government (Boston, Western Islands, 1965), pp. 82-83. 3. Stalin, op. cit., pp. 73, 77.

4. Ibid., p. 79. 5. Joseph Stalin, Marxism and the National Question (New York, International Publishers, 1942), p. 22. 6. Ibid., p. 135. 7. William Z. Foster, Toward Soviet America (New York,
Coward-McCann, 1932), p. 326. 8. Stalin, Marxism and the National Question, op. cit., pp. 116-17. 9. Joseph Stalin, Problems of Leninism 11th Edition (Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House 1951), pp. 156-57. 10. R. H. S. Crossman, ed., New Fabian Essays (London, Turnstile Press, 1952), p. 22. 11. "N. S. Khruschchev's Replies to Questions by I. Pietra, Director of the Italian Newspaper Giorno," Current Soviet Documents, May 6, 1963, p. 16. Quoted in American Bar Association, Standing Committee on Education Against Communism, Peaceful Coexistence, A Communist Blueprint for Victory, (Chicago, ABA, 1964), p. 64. 12. Luis Corvalan, "The Nations Must Choose Between Coexistence and Nuclear War," El Siglo, September 20, 1963. Quoted in Peaceful Coexistence, op. cit., p. 66. 13. Gilberto Vieira, "The Attitude of the Chinese Communist Party and the Unity of the Communist Movement," November, 1963. Quoted in Peaceful Coexistence, op. cit., pp. 66-67. 14. Havana radio broadcast (European Service), August 17, 1963. Quoted in Peaceful Coexistence, op. cit., p. 68. 15. Ibid., p. 63.

16. See Jan Kozak, And Not a Shot is Fired (New Canaan, Connecticut, Long House, 1962).


. . . The very fact that so much in politics is done in the dark, behind closed doors, promotes suspicion. Everybody knows that corruption thrives in secret places, and avoids public places, and we believe it a fair presumption that secrecy means impropriety. So, our honest politicians and our honorable corporation heads owe it to their reputations to bring their activities out into the open.1

Woodrow Wilson

Chapter Four: THE COUNCIL ON

WITH HIS entry into the First World War, Woodrow Wilson openly grabbed the dictatorial power he had secretly wanted all along.2 He enjoyed it very much. As he had expected, it provided rare opportunities to demonstrate the Spiritual Greatness of Woodrow Wilson. Indeed, it was only after the war ended, that the Wilsonian plans went seriously wrong. The Great Leader demanded, and the Allies reluctantly agreed, to fashion the treaty of peace on the basis of his famous Fourteen Points. It was primarily on the basis of this binding agreement that the Germans agreed to the Armistice and to negotiate at Versailles. It said that no "punitive treaty" would be imposed upon Germany; that there would be no punitive peace. In a meeting of the Council of Four, at the Peace Conference, however, House agreed with Lloyd George and Clemenceau that this binding agreement should be completely repudiated—indeed, that Germany should be forced to pay the entire cost of the war. And Wilson of course agreed with House. To people who complained that he was repudiating his own Fourteen Points and therefore violating logic, the Great Leader replied as follows: "Logic! Logic! I don't give a damn for logic." 3 There is a strange logic in this, however, for by thus damning logic, as Tansill observes, the Leader "indirectly extended a much-needed helping hand to Adolf Hitler who warmly 29

welcomed impressive illustrations of Allied perfidy as one of the best means to promote the Nazi movement." 4 Hitler of course was also a Socialist. But Woodrow Wilson's most famous defeat was the happy fate of the League of Nations. As usual, he and House agreed on the tactics to be used to put the thing over, as in this statement by House, who is delivering a message from Wilson: My own conviction, as you know, is that the administrative constitution of the League must grow and not be made. . . . Any attempt to begin by putting executive authority in the hands of any particular group of powers would be to sow a harvest of jealousy and distrust which would spring up at once and choke the whole thing. To take up one thing and only one, but quite sufficient in itself: The United States Senate would never ratify any treaty which put the force of the United States at the disposal of any such group or body. Why begin at the impossible end, when it is feasible to plant a system which will slowly but surely ripen into fruition? 5

Observe. The Senate would never approve of such a scheme, because it would mean the end of the government of which it is a part—so House-Wilson proposes still another trick. The senators will simply be told, not that the League is what it is—but that it is, say, an innocuous organization to protect world peace. As we have seen, the technique was recommended to Gloria by House-Dru, who warned that they must "veil" their thoughts, "so that those we would influence will think us reasonable." But Wilson luckily was too deranged to take his own advice. The more the senators argued, the less reasonable he became—sensing an offense to his Spiritual Purity—and this, as we know, was what saved the United States. He refused to accept any reservations whatever to the League—didn't play the trick—and this combined with his provoking behavior led to the rejection of the scheme. It was a disconsolate pack of peacemongers indeed who stood in Paris among the ruins of their scheme. There was Colonel House, of course. He was one of four members of the American Peace Commission, and directed our negotiations at the conference. There was Christian A. Herter. There was Alien Welsh Dulles. And there was John Foster Dulles himself.

Foster Dulles was a lawyer on the staff of the American
delegation. Indeed, he was one of five close advisers to Wilson.6 " . . . I shared with him the jubilation of Armistice pay and I went on to work with him throughout the Paris Peace Conference. . . ." 7 Colonel House now got together these ambitious intellectuals, along with some sympathetic Englishmen, and arranged a series of meetings at the Hotel Crillon and the Hotel Majes-

tic, where matters culminated at a dinner on May 30, 1919.8

The Englishmen went home and formed an outfit called the Institute of International Affairs. The others came to America

and formed the Council on Foreign Relations.9 On July 29, 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations was incorporated, to bring together experts on statecraft, finance, industry, education and science; to create and stimulate international thought among the people of the United States, and to this end, to cooperate with the Government of the United States and with international agencies ... to create new bodies, and to employ such other and further means, as from time to time may seem wise and proper.10

What they had realized was that the public mind had not been properly prepared for the League. What they had realized, in fact, was the truth of Lenin's remark that the workers must be given an "internationalist education," and urged to demand "freedom of secession for oppressed countries"—because without this education "there can be no internationalism." So they began, for instance, to hold cozy meetings, just like the ones in Paris, at which influential businessmen, whose companies contributed at least $1,000, were treated to foreign policy discussions by "prominent experts." During the single year of 1958-59, for instance, says the Council's own Annual Report,11 lucky industrialists heard from foreign policy specialist Fidel Castro, a Socialist; from Anastas I. Mikoyan, of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a Socialist; from Dag Hammarskjold of the UN, a Socialist; from Kwame Nkrumah, the Socialist civil rights specialist, who later was booted out of Ghana by his former black slaves—he spoke of course on "free Africa"; from Mahmoud Fawzi, foreign minister of the United Arab Republic, a Socialist; from M.C. Chagla, of India, a Socialist; from Oskar Lange, vice president of the state council of the Polish People's Re31

public, a Socialist; and from Marko Nikezic, Yugoslav Ambassador to the United States, a Socialist. There is more, much more—indeed, the Council lists not one speaker who is known to advocate traditional American foreign policy—but you no doubt get the point. It is important to record that the Council on Foreign Relations is a tax-exempt organization—which means that these enlightening activities are paid for by all the people of the United States. In September 1939, soon after the start of World War II, representatives of the Council went to the State Department with an offer of "help." The Department went for it.12 Four bands of CFR commandos landed on the problems of security, economics, politics and territory, in a campaign later called the War and Peace Studies. At the beginning of 1941, these four fields were formalized as sections of a new Divison of Special Research, with the continued assistance of the secretaries of the informal groups, and a CFR member as division director. During the next year, the Department installed an Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policies, seven members of which were CRFists such as James T. Shotwell, who as you will remember belonged to the original Inquiry. Indeed, what happened was this—House's Inquiry began to arrange the world during the First World War, and his Council on Foreign Relations finished the job during the Second. Philip E. Mosely, for instance, of the CFR and research secretary of the Territorial group, went with Secretary Hull to Moscow in 1943, where the Moscow declaration was issued, the text of which had been previously prepared in this same Committee on Postwar Foreign Policies. Walter R. Sharp, CFR, research secretary of the Political group, served as secretary general of the UN Food Conference in Quebec in 1945. And Dwight E. Lee, CFR, research secretary of the Peace Aims group, became assistant secretary of Committee I, Commission HI, at the San Francisco Conference. Indeed, at that San Francisco Conference, where the United Nations was organized, more than forty members of the American delegation were also members of the CFR. The Council on Foreign Relations, in short, says a congressional report,
came to be in essence an agency of the United States government. . . . . . . There can be no doubt that much of the thinking in the State Department and much of the background of 32

direction of its policies came from the personnel of ... The Council on Foreign Relations. . . .13 Indeed, says Richard H. Rovere, the directors of the Council on Foreign Relations make up a sort of Presidium for that part of the Establishment that guides our destiny as a

nation. . . .14 (Italics added) What Mr. Rovere meant for sure, we do not know, but it is interesting to observe that it is also a Presidium that guides the destiny of Russia as a nation. The way the Constitution tells it, we aren't supposed to have Presidiums here in America. When the end of the war approached, the members of the CFR, more experienced than they were as members of the Inquiry, began to lay plans to prevent after the Second World War the terrible things that had happened after the First. The Committee on Studies of the Council on Foreign Relations is concerned that the debunking journalistic campaign following World War I should not be repeated and believes that the American public deserves a clear and competent statement of our basic aims and activities during the secone World War.15 They began to arrange for the manufacture of some "history," such as a projected study by CFRist William L. Langer, which would present the authorized version of the recent trouble. Says Barnes, It may be said, with great restraint that, never since the Dark and Middle Ages, have there been so many powerful forces organized and alerted against the assertion and acceptance of historical truth as are active today to prevent the facts about the responsibility for the Second World War and its results from being made generally accessible to the American public. . . .16

What they were worried about was that just as the truth about the First World War had saved us from their League, so the truth about the Second World War might save us from their United Nations. Now who belonged to this strange organization? Well, there was Soviet agent Alger Hiss.17 There was Soviet agent Lauchlin Currie.18 There was Soviet agent Frederick Vanderbilt Field.19 There was Owen Lattimore,20 described by a congressional committee as a "conscious, articulate instrument of the Soviet international conspiracy." 21 And there was Thomas W. Lament, of J.P. Morgan & 33

Company.22 Once again we see the strange presence of the "interests" which are supposed to be so opposed to Marxian Socialism. There was Alien Welsh Dulles, of course, who later became head of our Central Intelligence Agency. Dulles, as we have seen, was one of the founding members of the CFR. He has served as secretary, 23 became a director in 1930, and was elected president in 1946.24 At one time, he served on the CFR's Committee on Research, with seven others, one of whom was Philip C. Jessup, another Council director,25 whose pungent resume later caused his rejection by the U.S. Senate as a Presidential nominee. 20 Dulles's Intelligence apparently failed to inform him that still another committee member was Soviet agent Laurence Duggan. 27 And then there was John Foster Dulles himself. 28 He, too, as you will recall, was a founding member of the CFR. In 1934, John Foster was chairman of a group which included Henry A. Wallace, then in charge of the destruction of our agriculture and later the presidential candidate of the (Communist) Progressive Party; and his good friend Walter Lippmann, leading member of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society and another Council director.29 Dulles was also chairman of another group, which included his good friend Walter Lippmann and his good friend Philip C. Jessup.30 Indeed, says a helpful lady named Miss Janet Rigney, the librarian at the Council on Foreign Relations, Dulles was "a very active member." What sort of organization, essentially, is this, which John Foster Dulles helped to found, and in which he was for years a very active member? Well, there seems to be a small difference of opinion. The Council on Foreign Relations says it is just another American organization working to educate Americans in the field of foreign affairs. On the other hand, for instance, there is Dan Smoot:

The fact . . . that communists, Soviet espionage agents, and pro-communists could work inconspicuously for many years as influential members of the Council indicates something very significant about the Council's objectives. The ultimate aim of the Council on Foreign Relations (however well-intentioned its prominent and powerful members may be) is the same as the ultimate aim of international communism: to create a one-world socialist system and make the United States an official part of it.31 Mr. Smoot has been a member of the faculty at Harvard 34

University, which would ordinarily mean that to criticize him
in any way is dangerous extremism; but he also has been exposed as a former agent of the FBI—which to the misinformed and misled means of course that anything he has to say should be discounted. The solution is obvious. Let's rely completely on the Council! It publishes an extensive assortment of books, pamphlets, studies and polls, so let's simply select at random some interesting titles and take the Council's word for what its education is all about. Proceeding at once, then, to our library shelves, we come upon a series called American Interests in the War and the Peace, consisting of confidential memoranda prepared for the State Department, one number of which, headed "Confidential, For limited circulation," is a report of an inquiry conducted in 1944 by affiliated Councils throughout the country

on public acceptability of a postwar international organization.

. . . The sovereignty fetish is still so strong in the
public mind, that there would appear to be little chance of winning popular assent to American membership in anything approaching a super-state organization. Much will depend on the kind of approach which is used in further

popular education. Should the approach be specific or general?
everybody!" 32

And an agent in Los Angeles warns that "If we are too specific, we may get a purely isolationist point of view from

Observe. In a year in which Americans are dying, ostensibly to defend the American way of life, the Council believes that American independence is a "fetish." It believes that the "fetish" should be replaced by a "super-state organization," which would mean the end of the United States Government,
which would become nothing more than a bureau.

Observe the suggestion that the Council perhaps shouldn't spell out specifically what the plan is all about—still another application of House's advice.
Further on, the report speaks of an "internationalized

force strong enough to prevent aggression by a major power,"
and of an international organization with "independent executive authority." 33

And finally: apossible further difficulty was cited, namely, that [difficulty] arising from the Constitutional provision that 35

only Congress may declare war. This argument was countered with the contention that a treaty would override this barrier, let alone the fact that our participation in such police action as might be recommended by the international security organization need not necessarily be construed as war.34 Remember that this confidential document was prepared for the State Department by the Council itself. And here we see that the Council is recommending ways of circumventing the Constitution. They are going to get us into still additional wars, they say, but from now on, the wars won't be declared by the people by way of the Congress—indeed, they won't be referred to as wars at all, but as "police actions." Which raises the question, if these additional wars are so just and necessary: why can't the people be trusted to declare the wars themselves? Observe that this masterwork was produced only six years before the "police action" in Korea, where 35,000 Americans were killed. It is important always to remember that since the CFR is a tax-exempt organization—made possible by the Marxist income tax—you are the one who is paying for such work. Another interesting document along this same line is attributed to a Payson S. Wild, Jr., who explains: Dealing with an entire state as a criminal has its psychological as well as military and other practical difficulties, but international police would not confine their functions to operations against whole nations. They could and should operate against individual persons. ... In fact, the main job of such a force may be that of enforcing law against private persons.35 The law that they enforce would replace our American Bill of Rights. Indeed, says Wild: ... If the world community can be so thoroughly integrated that it is ready to support a police force along with the necessary accompanying political paraphernalia of executives, judges, and legislators, the nation-state unit will be so subordinated that police action against it would be as pointless as American federal coercion against individual states as such. . . .36 So "enforcing law against private persons" won't just be 36

the main job of the international police—it will be their only job. Their main job for the moment, says Wild, will be "that of warning, threatening, and guiding with a view to maintaining the peace and preserving the influence of community law." If countries "persist in defying community regulations," the international police will "coerce them into agreeing to accept the jurisdiction of the appropriate international agencies." 37 Observe. The main job of the international police will be to issue threats and apply coercion—which according to Stokely Carmichael is "police brutality." It is interesting to note that Mr. Wild's chef d'oeuvre was prepared under the auspices of the Group on Armament Questions, a member of which was Alien Dulles. These groups, we are told, often provide the "impetus" for a work, "as well as advice and guidance." The members of the group "make valuable contributions to the finished product." 38 Then there is a rather provocative document by Frederick S. Dunn, who is looking for ways to get people to support UNESCO:
Hence the revelation that it may be possible to influence national behavior by controlling the means of implanting cultural attitudes is not an unmixed blessing. Any effort to control these means inevitably involves some danger to freedom. However, there is no reason for abandoning the field of effective communication to dictators. On the contrary, it places a duty on responsible leaders in democratic communities to surpass the totalitarians in their knowledge of how people's minds can be changed.39

Not only should we do it—we should do it even better than the totalitarians.
The most successful examples of modifications of basic predispositions and unconscious motivations can doubtless be found in the regimes of the totalitarian states. These organisms do not rely on manipulation of the mass media alone but use the techniques of neutralizing the primary associations which exist in each community. This procedure consists of banishing the local political leader, silencing the parish priest, at least on political subjects, and placing spies within the community, neighborhood, and even the family group to prevent the shaping and expression of attitudes other than those desired by the regime. When the former associations have been nullified, the regime then substitutes 37

its own local opinion leaders, permeating all society and infiltrating to the cradle-side.40

Observe the view—basic to Marxism—that people are not sovereign beings to be dealt with as equals, but "masses" to be manipulated and tricked as the dictator so wills.
The technique of neutralization, plus complete monopoly over all forms of communications, public and private, and insulation from external influences, creates conditions under which even basic predispositions seem to be malleable. Thus the communications system in the Soviet Union has been undeniably successful in influencing the behavior of the masses of the Soviet population both through mass media and through the personalized form known as 'oral agitation.' But obviously its success depends upon total control of the individual's environment, a control which cannot be reproduced on the international level.41 Observe how longingly Dunn describes such Soviet techniques as completely monopolizing the means of communication and placing spies in the family group. For instance, The most interesting feature of the Soviet communications system is the intricate network of personal contacts that has been built up through the local party organization and the 'oral agitation' procedures. The Soviet leaders place heavy reliance on this system of daily face-to-face contact with the masses as a means of forming opinions and changing attitudes. The system is far more extensive than has been commonly realized in the United States, and reaches down into every corner of the community. . . .42

So Russia is even more repressive than Americans believe, which is going some, and this is exactly what makes it so interesting. . . . Thus, the totalitarians have recognized a truth which world educators and international communicators must recognize if they are to achieve success in re-education. Mass media cannot alter opinions, attitudes, and underlying motivations unless the leaders of opinion on the local and primary levels play the same tune." 43 And therefore—just as the totalitarians do in Russia—so, here in the United States, UNESCO

must direct its material to the primary channels (clubs, 38

church groups, schools, and other opinion elites) through which it can be passed to the masses, strengthened in its ability to change attitudes by the attendant prestige of the local leaders and by its appropriateness in the light of existing predispositions.44 Dunn speaks with approval of somebody named Lazarsfeld, who sees great value in personal contacts, because

political discussions crop up and are harder to stop than it would be to turn off a radio or put down a newspaper. In these personal contacts the guard is down and the person is more susceptible to influence and pressure. . . .45 It is interesting to observe that this book was published by the Council on Foreign Relations in 1950, when Alien Dulles was president of that organization. Then there is a study submitted for the use of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called Basic Aims of United States Foreign Policy, in which we learn that freedom is "interdependent," and that policies must be jointly undertaken by various nations of the free world. . . . . . . There is room in such a cooperative international community for states with differing political, economic, and social systems, including states which profess or wish to be Socialist. Indeed, the close cooperation of states whose economic systems bear different labels can help to discredit the false thesis that the cold war is a struggle between socialism and capitalism instead of between Communist imperialism and the right to freedom. . . .46

The councillors do not say whether there is room in such a cooperative community for a Socialist state such as National Socialist Germany. We should withdraw our reservations to the World Court, they say, and allow it to adjudicate our internal affairs, and must work not only to maintain the United Nations, but "to strengthen it, and to help it gradually to acquire more authority. . . ." 47 Indeed, progress in the control of arms requires : the development, gradual as it may be, of a stronger international political structure, which is indispensable to any durable arrangement for inspection and control. . . .48 It is fascinating to note how the system will work: 39

Now that the other Western countries are in a position to join in the providing of aid, a multinational structure including both lending and borrowing states to carry out the necessary programs offers a means of increasing the total effort while avoiding the difficulties inherent in the bilateral method. . . . What advantages the United States might lose in giving up direct control of the expenditure of funds it should more than regain in sounder political relationships.49

So the Americans will do the work and the foreign politicians will do the spending—and they will go all atingle at the thought of the United States. This of course is the basis of our foreign aid program, and as you will remember, is exactly the arrangement Stalin said must be made. The reason he said it was so important is, in fact, as we have seen, that the victory of international Socialism is impossible without it. And there is a book by a Eugene Staley, who writes that
Another 'grand solution,' the one which looks to a world plan on collectivist lines, is impossible in the absence of a central authority capable of planning and getting the plan accepted and executed. Certainly for this generation any practical progress towards economic welfare and peace will have to rest on methods that fall short of such completeness.. . .50

In a footnote on the next page, he speaks of a work which makes "a positive contribution to social planning theory. . . ." It is On the Economic Theory of Socialism, by Oskar Lange,51 who a few years later became foreign minister of Communist Poland. Indeed, says Louis Budenz, former managing editor of the Daily Worker, Lange "was a member of the Communist Party all the time he was here when he was pretending to just be a general liberal friend of Poland." 52 Staley complains about our current system of government regulation, but not because it regulates too much; not at all— it doesn't do it enough:
. . . Lacking positive control, it cannot cause an industry to expand when good business cycle policy would call for expansion. It may defend the consumer against obvious exploitation, but it cannot make use of price policy as a means of promoting stability in the general economic system.53

He doesn't explain why these villainous industrialists wouldn't expand by themselves. He quotes with approval from a pamphlet called—probably as a gag—"A Positive Program for Laissez Faire":

. . . We may endure regulation for a time, on the dubious assumption that governments are more nearly competent to regulate than to operate. In general, however, the state should face the necessity of actually taking over, owning, and managing directly, both the railroads and utilities, and all other industries in which it is impossible to maintain effectively competitive conditions. . . .54 (Italics in th inal) And he doesn't explain that it is only government interference which makes impossible effectively competitive conditions. What we need, says Staley, is the "coordination of the economic programs of different countries." 55 ". . . We should have a more prosperous and happy world if nationalism meant what we now mean by regionalism, and if nation-states were like member states of a world federal union. . . . " The idea of national independence should be altered, "gradually, of necessity, but steadily." 56 He speaks of the "taxation of international businesses," and of "world codes" which should be "administered by world agencies." 57 And he recommends an article by Philip J. Jaffe, in Amerasia of September 1938. Jaffe turned out a few years later to be a Soviet spy, and Amerasia turned out to be a Soviet spy ring.58 And finally there is a document which it is interesting to compare with the purposes of the Marxists, in the specific issue of Marxist China. In 1950, when Alien Dulles was president of the Council On Foreign Relations, it published one of its polls of "leading citizens," the majority of whom apparently feel that:
. . . The result of the civil war in China was largely the product of internal Chinese forces. It has been rightly said that the United States could not, within the reasonable limits of its peacetime capabilities, have changed the result of the war. . . .59 This of course is completely untrue. For instance, it was the United States which arranged for the delivery to Stalin after the war, of mountains of captured Japanese equipment in 41

Manchuria; and it was Marxist agent Mao Tse-tung to whom Marxist agent Stalin handed it. It was General George C. Marshall who, in January 1946, forced Chiang Kai-shek to take Mao into his government; it was Marshall who boasted that with "a stroke of the pen" he had disarmed thirty-nine of Chiang's divisions.60 Digging further we read:

Nevertheless, it is too late now for the United States to think of increasing its cooperation with the Chinese Nationalist Government. The latter no longer enjoys the support of the Chinese people and many of its leaders have proved to be corrupt and incompetent. The United States should not release for Nationalist use unexpended funds for the EGA China aid appropriation, or funds authorized by Congress for military aid in the general area of China. The prestige and influence of the Nationalist Government are at such a low ebb everywhere that it would injure the American interest generally if the United States were to do more than it is doing at present to help the Nationalists oppose the Chinese Communist regime.61
This of course is exactly the same line—almost to the words and phrases—sold to Americans at exactly the same time, for the exact purpose of destroying American support for free China, by a raft of articles and books many of the authors of which soon after turned out to be Soviet agents and Soviet apologists.62 Indeed: Diplomatic recognition of the Chinese Communist regime by the United States would not imply approval of the Communist government but rather acknowledgment of its ability to command the support of the Chinese people. In the long run, the United States would probably be in a better position to advance its interest in China if it maintained diplomatic relations with the Communist regime. While for the time being a policy of watchful waiting best suits the American interest, the eventual provision of acceptable guarantees would justify American recognition of the regime.63

At the time, as you will recall, the Chinese Socialists had just been installed, and needed massive, diplomatic support to keep their seats. It was in this same year, 1950, the year in which Alien Dulles was publishing this stuff—that Mao Tse-tung entered the Korean War. This is the stuff you paid to produce—and remember that I 42

chose it all strictly at random. Indeed, I found no evidence at all that the Council on Foreign Relations publishes anything to expose Marxian Socialism and defend the United States. This is the organization founded and led for years by John
Foster Dulles.

1. Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (New York, Doubleday, Page & Company, 1913), p. 114. 2. Alexander L. and Juliette L. George, Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House (New York, The John Day Company, 1956), pp. 177-78. 3. Charles Callan Tansill, "The United States and the Road to War in Europe," in Harry Elmer Barnes, ed., Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell, Idaho, The Caxton Printers, Ltd., 1953), p. 84.

4. Ibid., p. 85. 5. Charles Seymour, ed., The Intimate Papers of Colonel House (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1926), Vol. 4, p. 16. See also George Sylvester Viereck, The Strangest
Friendship in History (New York, Liveright, Inc., Publishers, 1932), p. 222. 6. John Robinson Beal, John Foster Dulles (New York, Harper & Brothers, 1957), p. 16. 7. Woodrow Wilson, Addresses upon the occasion of his Ninety-second Birthday Anniversary, December 28, 1948 (Stamford, Connecticut, The Overbrook Press (limited edition, 1000 copies), February, 1949), p. 7. 8. Harold Nicolson, Peacemaking 1919 (New York, Harcourt Brace, 1939), pp. 352-53. 9. They took the name of an organization already in existence. The original Council on Foreign Relations had been formed in New York in July, 1918, but in little more than a year had become inactive owing to an inability to raise the necessary funds. It was with 66 members of this original crowd that the peacemongers from Paris merged to form the organization we know today. See Whitney H. Shepardson, Early History of the Council on Foreign Relations (Stamford, Connecticut, The Overbrook Press, 1960), pp. 1, 8-9; The Council on Foreign Relations, A Record of Fifteen Years, 1921-1936 (New York, CFR, January 1, 1937); and Dan Smoot, The Invisible Government (Boston, Western Islands, 1965), p. 3. 10. A Record of Fifteen Years, op. cit., p. 8. 11. Smoot, op. cit., pp. 14-15.

12. Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Founda43

tions and Comparable Organizations, House of Reps., TaxExempt Foundations, Hearings, 83rd Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1954), pp. 885-86. Or see Smoot, op. cit., pp. 3-4. 13. Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, House of Reps., TaxExempt Foundations, Report, 83rd Cong., 2nd sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1954), p. 177. 14. Richard H. Rovere, "The American Establishment," Esquire, Vol. 57, No. 5, May, 1962, p. 107. 15. Rockefeller Foundation, Annual Report, 1946, p. 188, Or see Tax-Exempt Foundations, Report, op. cit., p. 178; or Rene A. Wormser, Foundations: Their Power and Influence (New York, The Devin-Adair Company, 1958), p. 209. 16. Harry Elmer Barnes, "The Struggle Against the Historical Blackout" (pamphlet), 7th ed., no date, no imprint, p. 8. 17. Smoot, op. cit., p. 4. 18. Loc. cit. 19. A Record of Fifteen Years, op. cit., p. 48. 20. Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, House of Reps., Tax-Exempt Foundations, Hearings, 82nd Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C.,

U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1953), p. 672. 21. Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Internal
Security, Senate, Institute of Pacific Relations, Report No.

2050, 82nd Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1952), p. 224.
22. A Record of Fifteen Years, op. cit., p. 27.

23. Ibid., p. 4.
24. Current Biography, Vol. 10, No. 3, March, 1949, p. 14. 25. A Record of Fifteen Years, op. cit., p. 4.

26. Robert Welch, The Politician (Belmont, Massachusetts, Belmont Publishing Company, 1964), p. 220.
27. Eugene Staley, World Economy in Transition (New

York, CFR, 1939), copyright page. See also testimony of Mrs. Hede Massing, in Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, Senate,
Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, 82nd Cong., first sess.

(Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1951), Part 1, pp. 234, 236. Mrs. Massing was the Soviet agent who recruited Duggan into her apparatus. At the time, he was naturally head of the Latin-American Division of the Department of State.
28. A Record of Fifteen Years, op. cit., p. 47.

29. Ibid., pp. 4, 14-15.
30. Frederick Sherwood Dunn, Peaceful Change, A Study of International Procedures, (New York, CFR, 1937), Foreword, p. v.

31. Smoot, op. cit., p. 5. 44

32 American Public Opinion and Postwar Security Commitments (New York, CFR, 1944), p. 4. 33. Loc. cit. 34. Ibid., p. 10. 35. Payson S. Wild, Jr., Some Problems of International policing (New York, CFR, January, 1944), p. 6. This is also part of the series called American Interests in the War and the Peace. 36. Ibid., pp. 6-7. 37. Ibid., p. 8. 38. Publications of the Council on Foreign Relations, 192250 (New York, CFR, no date). Inside front cover. 39. Frederick S. Dunn, War And the Minds of Men (New York, published for the CFR by Harper and Bros., 1950), p. 50. 40. Ibid., p. 90. 41. Ibid., pp. 90-91. 42. Ibid., p. 91. 43. Loc. cit. 44. Ibid., p. 92. 45. Ibid., p. 86. 46. Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, United States Foreign Policy, Compilation of Studies, Senate Doc. No. 24 (from Study No. 7, by the Council on Foreign Relations in November, 1959), 87th Cong., first sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1961), pp. 649-50. 47. Ibid., p. 650. 48. Ibid., p. 656. 49. Ibid., p. 653. 50. Staley, op. cit., p. 175. 51. (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1938). 52. Tax-Exempt Foundations, Hearings, 1953, op. cit., p. 724. 53. Staley, op. cit., p. 187. 54. Ibid., p. 197. Henry C. Simons, A Positive Program for Laissez Faire: Some Proposals for a Liberal Economic Policy (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, Public Policy Pamphlet No. 15, 1934), pp. 11-12. 55. Staley, op. cit., p. 199. 56. Ibid., p. 227. 57. Ibid., p. 232. 58. Ibid., p. 285. We shall see more of Jaffe and Amerasia later. 59. American Policy Toward China, A Report on the Views of Leading Citizens in Twenty-Three Cities (New York, CFR, 1950), p. 6. 60. Joseph R. McCarthy, America's Retreat from Victory: The Story of George Catlett Marshall (Belmont, Massachusetts, American Opinion Reprints, 1961), p. 4. 61. American Policy Toward China, op. cit., p. 6. 45

62. and ion 63.

John T. Flynn, While You Slept: Our Tragedy in Asia Who Made It (Belmont, Massachusetts, American OpinReprints. 1 9 6 1 . pp. 33-34, 41-49. American Policy Toward China, op. cit., pp. 7-8.

If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.


IT WAS Marxist agent Karl Marx, who said that religion is "the opiate of the people." So when the Marxists finally captured Russia, they went to work to destroy religion. They committed the usual atrocities in churches, murdered some priests, naturally, and organized government agencies to promote atheism, all to clear the way for the coming deification of Lenin. But they found it impossible to rub out religion completely. So they organized what they called the "living church," and since they did so with the help of the secret police, the living clergymen were naturally lackeys of the police—indeed, many of them turned out to be secret policemen. They weren't clergymen at all. The point was to use that religious belief which they couldn't destroy; to use the respect people paid them as "clergymen" in order to manufacture support for their Socialist schemes. Joseph Zack Kornfeder, one of the founders of the U.S. Communist Party in 1919, explains: [the technique doesn't] combat or openly challenge the spiritualism of the church or the concept of the fatherhood of God. It does not challenge it. It even, when necessary, pays lip service to it, but it concentrates on the so-called social problems, all the problems that naturally could be exploited to create social strife between classes, races, competing church groups, and so on.1

And the Marxists soon found out, says Kornfeder, that "the atheistic attack from outside" was even less effective elsewhere than it was in Russia, and that the way to fight religion in the countries of the West, "was to concentrate on the inside operation...." 47

Indeed he says, the Marxists taught that strategy in the Lenin School—where Kornfeder was trained in political warfare—for use specifically in the United States. "The policy in those days was framed in such a way," explains Benjamin Gitlow, another U.S. Party founder, "that the members of the Communist Party could infiltrate church organizations for the purpose of conducting their propaganda among them, for enlisting their support for Soviet Russia and for the various campaigns in which the Communists were interested." 2 On August 20, 1935, in Moscow, the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International, including a full delegation of the American comrades, unanimously adopted a resolution calling for a "united front" with religious organizations, which proves, says Gitlow, "that Communist infiltration of the religious field was decided upon in Moscow as a major policy. . . ." 3 And in the next year, Earl Browder, head of the Stalinist organization in the United States, wrote, "It is true that we have learned to be much more careful about the quality of our mass work in this field. We take pains not to offend any religious belief. We don't want to close the minds of religious people to what we have to tell them about capitalism, because of some remark or action offensive to their religion. We can well say that the cessation of ineffective, rude, and vulgar attacks upon religion is a positive improvement in our work." 4 Marxist agent Joe Stalin had learned a lesson from Colonel House. Indeed, the Marxists were busy at these tactics in the United States long before they thought of applying them in Russia. One of the five founders, in 1907, of an outfit called the Methodist Federation for Social Service, was a gentleman by the name of Harry F. Ward.5 Mr. Ward was a "Reverend," of course—that is to say, he put his collar on backwards—and on March 3, 1919, the Methodist Ministers Meeting of Washington, D.C., passed a resolution denouncing Ward for having applauded Bolshevism and Marxist rule in Russia.6 On April 24, 1920, a New York State legislative committee reported that he "shows a decided sympathy for Socialist social forms and is friendly to Bolshevism in Russia," and that, in fact, experts have characterized his statements "as downright falsehoods or distorted facts, and as a kind of Bolshevism far worse than the Bolshevism of Russia." 7 (Italics added) And Samuel Gompers, founder and 48

president of the American Federation of Labor, called Ward "the most ardent pro-Bolshevik cleric in this country." 8 Indeed, testifies Kornfeder, Ward made several lengthy trips to Moscow, where he visited [Emil Yaroslawsky] the head of the Anti-God Society of the Soviet Union, and I am sure he saw Bukharin, who was at that time the head theoretician of the Communist International, and I am fairly certain in my mind that he also saw Joe Stalin, because Joe Stalin was very much interested in this living-church approach because he was the one that originally was in charge of it, in the Politbureau, Joe Stalin. In fact, when one studies the methods of the Methodist Federation, I wonder who learned from whom, whether it was Harry F. Ward who learned from Stalin or whether Stalin learned from Harry Ward. They probably learned from each other the methods as to how to do it inside the church.9
Remember that Stalin had also begun his career in a theological seminary. And both Leonard Patterson and Manning Johnson, both at the time Communist officials, identify Ward as a member of the Communist Party.10 Indeed, Johnson says Ward was not only a Red, but was "the Red dean of the Communist Party in the religious field." 11 What sort of organization was this Methodist Federation for Social Service, which Ward founded and led for almost thirty-five years? Well, says Gitlow, its objective "was to transform the Methodist Church and Christianity into an instrument for the achievement of socialism. . . ." Behind its facade, "the Communists posed as religious reformers fighting orthodoxy and reaction in religion." It was in fact "a Communist Party instrument controlled by the Communist Party through the Communist cell secretly operating as a Communist Party disciplined unit in the federation." 12 There was for instance a lady named Winifred Chappell. Miss Chappell was a Soviet agent, of course,13 and Ward sent her into youth work for the church. In the March 3, 1934, issue of the Epworth Herald, published by the church for the Epworth League, in which Miss Chappell is described as Secretary of MFSS, she advises our youth to:

sabotage war preparations and war; be agitators or sabo49

tage; put down tools when the order is to make and load
munitions; spoil war materials and machinery.

[meet] with others of like purpose and of iron will to carry out the purpose. This means knowing what selfish capitalism is like, not just in general, but in particular; not flinching even from knowing by name and specific deed the
big profiteers who have betrayed the people, how they have

profited from the starvation of children; how they have called upon police and militia, clubbed and gas-bombed and machinegunned to put down the workers when they have cried for bread.14 Then there was Rev. Jack R. McMichael, who in 1944 was unanimously elected by the executive committee as executive secretary. An examination of his record, says Gitlow,

will show him up as an important member of the Young Communist League and the Communist Party. His Communist loyalties and activities were well known when he became the unanimous choice for the federation's top administrative, organizing, and political orientation job. It indicates what a firm grip the Communist cell in the federation had on the organization.15

In 1937, Dr. Charles C. Webber, co-secretary of MFSS, spoke at a church in Rockford, Illinois.
His message at that time was that the steel industry would be the first one seized in taking over private property, to be operated under the communal plan. . . .16 At another time, he told an audience at Rochester Divinity School,

Capitalism is un-Christian and unethical, and must give way to socialism and communism, and the missionaries of the future must be social revolutionists.17
The MFSS also holds some interesting meetings. In 1939, for instance, they held a conference in Kansas City:

The five bishops endorsed the Federation's platform for the overthrow of the present capitalistic system in the United States and favored its replacement with a social planning
order. The pamphlets of the Federation, distributed at the

session, declare that under the new social order private ownership of property is to come to an end. Under their system there are to be no capitalists. Private property, according to the pamphlets, is to be taken over without com50

pensation to the owners and operated by 'useful social workers.'
One of the bishops was an individual named G. Bromley Oxnam, who read with approval from one of the pamphlets.18 In December 1947, they were back in Kansas City, where executive secretary Jack McMichael demanded "not the improvement of the present social order but its revolutionary abolition and replacement anew." 19 Among the pamphlets distributed this time, were some from the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, which the Department of Justice had recently called a Communist group.20 The keynote speaker on American-Soviet relations was Jerome Davis, who, in the Methodist Federation's Social Questions Bulletin six months before, had defended the firing squads and concentration camps in Socialist Russia:
Russia believes it is wiser to destroy the enemies of the people from within rather than wait until they foment war from without.21

Now, Davis explained:
If Russia sends innocent people to concentration camps, and is tightening up on its civil liberties, that is the fault of America—the terrific campaign of war talk in the United States.

He was asked about Russia's seizure of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and replied that she was entitled to them.22 Davis has been identified at least twice under oath as a member of the Communist Party.23 His record of affiliations with Communist operations takes eight full pages to print.24 The keynote speaker on civil liberties was Harry F. Ward. His co-speaker was Carl Marzani, who had just been sentenced to a year in prison for concealing his membership in the Communist Party in order to keep a key job in the OSS and later the State Department.25 Issue after issue of the Methodist Federation's Social Questions Bulletin carries articles by Communist Ward, Communist McMichael, Communist Agnes Smedley, who helped arrange the delivery of China to Socialist Mao Tse-tung,26 German Communist Martin Hall 2 7 and Communist Dirk J. Struik.28 Struik, says Gitlow, is among a group who "have had either the closest relations to the MFSA or have been among its members and officers." 29 51

In the issue of October 1942, Dr. Charles C. Webber calls for "the socialization and democratization of the basic industries and banking," and says we should do so by using "the experience of the people of the Soviet Union." 30 In November 1943, a Dr. William B. Spofford reports: The basis of this confidence in socialism: even in short visits to four Soviet cities, a few collective farms and factories, I could see it made a nation and its people strong and determined and believing. If Americans do not accept Communism voluntarily, Spofford spouts, "the forces at work in this world will lead to revolution through violence." 31 In the February, March and April 1945 issues, we encounter a series by Franklin H. Littell, a member of the executive committee in 1944 and 1945, of which Gitlow says, Mr. Littell's organizational proposals on the infiltration of religion follow closely the cell techniques on infiltration described in the thesis on organization of both the Communist Party and the Communist International. . . . "This working unit in our time," Littell writes, "is usually called 'the cell,' a term describing a living thing which subdivides and becomes a whole body. . . . The cell is a face-toface group without turnover in membership." Littell advocates secrecy: "Action is undertaken with a sense of discipline which can never be attained by an open meeting called in enthusiasm for the carrying out of some program. . . ." He explains that "As the cells grow, divide, and separate, they will be the white corpuscles of health within the larger Christian community." 32 In Social Questions Bulletin for February 1946, we find an official statement from the Federation: "The clear duty of religious leaders is to declare judgment concerning the basic principles of Socialist society." 33 Gitlow quotes from an article in the Communist Political Affairs of August 1946—six months later—by William Z. Foster, head of the Communist Party: ". . . The clear duty of religious leaders is to declare judgment concerning the basic principles of Socialist society." 34 So this supposedly religious magazine, published by the Methodist Federation for Social Action, is a source of inspiration to the top Communist in the United States. The few thousand Social Actionists in MFSA didn't speak 52

in any way at all of course for the more than ten million American Methodists. And the real Methodists put up a fight. In 1937, for instance, the quadrennial conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church repudiated the Federation after the Methodist Laymen's League charged that five of its leaders were also members of Moscow-directed organizations.35 But, says Gitlow, the record proves:
. . . over three hundred Methodist clergymen from all parts of the country, including some of the church's most prominent bishops, participated in Communist-front organizations, collaborated with Communist Party leaders and with Communists who were leaders in these front organizations. The record proves how effective the Methodist Federation for Social Action was in the Methodist Church.36

And the Methodists were not the only denomination infected by Littell's "white corpuscles of health." Not only did the corpuscles do the same in most of the others, but they decided to get together, to join all the denominations in a single organization, and eventually dissolve them in one national church. In 1908, the year after the organization of the Marxistcontrolled MFSS, they formed the Federal Council of Churches. On December 2, they met in Philadelphia, and two days later adopted a document called "The Social Creed of the Churches." Its author, of course, was Harry F. Ward.37 Ward wrote that the churches must stand for "the most equitable division of the product of industry that can ultimately be devised." 38 Communist Ward was very influential in the new Federal Council of Churches. In 1900, he had helped to form one of its forerunners.39 In 1912, says a volume written by Ward for the Federal Council, he was one of five members of a Secretarial Council, consisting of the secretaries of the social service agencies of the various denominations. ". . . Through this Council the denominational agencies are working together," Ward explains, "issuing their literature in common, dividing the work and co-operating at every possible point, both nationally and locally. . . ." 40 Indeed, say Smith and Johns:
. . . According to an official diagram of the Federal Council, the Secretarial Council has an important function. All of the activities of the Federal Council, its executive and 53

administrative committees, pass through the Secretarial Council.41 The social service agency representing the Methodists, with which the Federal Council, we are told, is "connected" by its Secretarial Council, is of course the Methodist Federation for Social Service, the secretary of which was Harry F. Ward.42 The title page of the book reveals that Ward is also associate secretary of the Commission on the Church and Social Service of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America. And seven years later, Ward is still one of what is now ten members of the Council of Denominational Secretaries of the Commission on the Church and Social Service.43 The Commission is also publishing Ward's "The Social Creed of the Churches," of course,44 and another pamphlet called "Religious Democracy." 45 In 1917, the Department of the Church and Social Service of FCC published another Ward pamphlet called "What every church should know about its community." Another interesting corpuscle is Rev. Henry A. Atkinson. Like Ward, he was one of six associate secretaries of the Commission on the Church and Social Service of FCC, and one of five members of its Secretarial Council.46 The "social service" agency he represented, and which of course was "connected" with FCC, with the Congregational Social Service Commission in Boston.47 Atkinson also collaborated with Ward on "What every church should know about its community." A few years later, we are told, he was serving as secretary of the Commission on International Justice and Good Will of the Federal Council of Churches; as a member of the Committee of Direction of its Commission on Councils of Churches; and as secretary of the Committee on Interchange of Preachers and Speakers Between the Churches of America, Great Britain and France.48 Edgar C. Bundy writes:

The Rev. Henry A. Atkinson has quite a record. He was affiliated with the American Committee to Save Refugees, cited as a Communist front; the American Round Table on India, cited as 'a Communist front headed by Robert Norton, a well-known member of the Communist Party'; the American Russian Institute . . . listed by the Attorney General as Communist; the American Youth Congress, cited as subversive and Communist by Attorney General Tom Clark; the League of American Writers, cited as subversive and Communist by the Attorney General; and the 54

Protestant Digest, described as 'a magazine which has faithfully propagated the Communist Party line under the guise of being a religious journal.'49 Indeed, the California Committee on Un-American Activities cited the Protestant Digest as a "Communist publication." 50 Then there was the corpuscular bishop named G. Bromley Oxnam. In 1934, Oxnam was a member of FCC.51 Two years later, he is also an alternate member of the executive committee.52 In 1942, he is still a regular member of the executive committee.53 At the biennial meeting in November 1944, G. Bromley Oxnam was elected president.54 The interesting thing about this is that at the very same time, in 1944, Oxnam was unanimously elected vice president and member of the executive committee of the Communist-controlled Methodist Federation for Social Action.55 He was elected at the same meeting at which Jack McMichael, whose Communist loyalties and activities Gitlow says were "well known," was unanimously elected executive secretary. Oxnam explains that he was a member of this Communistcontrolled organization "for a number of years." 56 Indeed, as a member of the executive committee in 1944 and 1945, Oxnam served with executive committee member Franklin H. Littell, who as you will remember is an advocate of secrecy and of the "cell" theory of operation, techniques recommended by the Communist International. Oxnam was still a member of the executive committee—and still president of FCC—when, in August 1946, as we have seen, part of an official declaration of the Methodist Federation was reprinted by number one Soviet agent William Z. Foster in Political Affairs. And there is a highly pungent corpuscle named John A. Mackay, who in 1936, we read, is an alternate member of the executive committee of the Federal Council of Churches,57 along with G. Bromley Oxnam, and in 1942, along with Bromley, is still a regular member of the executive committee.58 Dr. Mackay, who was also president of the Princeton Theological Seminary and later of the International Missionary Council, apparently spoke with approval, early in 1950, of "the excellent behavior of the Communist armies in their conquest of the China mainland," and "the overwhelming support of the people for the new regime, based largely on

their disillusionment with the Nationalist government." 59 55

attitude." 70 Which as we have seen, was the suggestion made by Marxist agent Joe Stalin. We read of "shocking inequalities of income," one interesting solution to which could be that "the government might assume and exercise the powers of ownership, control, and management for the common good." 71 For instance, there should be "social planning and control of the credit and monetary systems and the economic pro56

In 1953, he apparently declared that the only thing more dangerous than Communism was anti-Communism.60 He didn't say whether the only thing more dangerous than Fascism was anti-Fascism. In the next year, FBI counterspy Herbert A. Philbrick wrote that he was shocked to read a statement by Mackay in a Presbyterian Letter issued in October 1953, which "supported not only the complete foreign policy program of the Soviet Union, but also contained all of the fundamental premises of Marxism, Leninism, and Stalinism concerning class struggle, imperialism, force and violence, and revolution." 61 The Communist activities of John A. Mackay are detailed below in the footnotes.62 And finally there is a very influential corpuscle named Reinhold Niebuhr. Already, in 1921, he was a member of the business and executive committees of the Federal Council of Churches.63 In 1933, he was still a member of the executive committee.64 And in 1936, he is an alternate member.65 At one time, he was chairman of the Commission on the Church and Social Service of FCC.66 By 1944, Niebuhr had already affiliated himself, actively, with fourteen Communist fronts.67 We learn moreover of a convention, at which the headliners included Earl Browder, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Max Yergan, Juan Marinello and Max Bedacht, all Reds—and Reinhold Niebuhr.68 The Communist activities of Reinhold Niebuhr are detailed in the footnotes.69 Like the Communist-controlled MFSA, the Federal Council of Churches poured out endless "statements." Communist Ward's Social Creed, for instance, was amended in 1912, and amended still again in 1932. At their quadrennial meeting, in Indianapolis on December 8, the gang adopted the following "social ideals": ". . . The churches have an obligation to prepare their members for world citizenship both by increasing their knowledge and by developing the necessary changes of

cesses for the common good"; and "a wider and fairer distribution of wealth." 72 In 1938, in a Labor Sunday Message issued by the Department of the Church and Social Service, we learn that it is the "duty" of Christians to contribute to "the transformation, and if necessary, the thorough reconstruction of the present economic and political system." The FCC said we also need "an orderly and organized world community," and that we therefore should "ultimately delegate whatever police power is used to a central representative agency. 73 On October 4, 1940, a dozen of the boys met in New York, and cooked up something called The American Churches and the International Situation. The statement was adopted at the biennial meeting in December of that year, and became an official pronouncement of the Federal Council of Churches.74 It tells peaceful Americans trying to stay out of the war: ... to profess a love for peace is no great virtue in those who control so disproportionate a share of the world's wealth that to retain it is their principal concern. 'Peace,' which means merely an undisturbed exploitation of power and privilege, is not true peace, but only an interlude which inevitably provokes revolt. To seek, through power, to maintain a status quo of inequality and injustice may be no less evil than to invoke force to change it.75
Observe the disdain for America's traditional love of genuine peace. Observe the idea that Americans own wealth not because of hard work, but because of luck, and therefore that they have no right to try to protect it. Observe in fact the idea that what is happening in America is "exploitation," committed by "power and privilege"—just as in Czarist Russia—and the hint that it would be perfectly fine to use force to stop it. On the very next page—in the very same context: a discussion of America—the Federal Council of Churches explains as follows:

. . . Some of us feel that force should now be used in an effort to overthrow those political leaders who most exemplify the evils of which we speak. To others of us such a resort to violence seems conscientiously objectionable, or unwise as creative of more evil. We respect such honest differences. . . . 57

Observe. The Federal Council of Churches implies that some of its members advocate the violent seizure of the American government—and says that this only makes an "honest difference"; that to advocate the violent seizure of our government is a perfectly reasonable position. It is interesting to note that according to the pamphlet, one of the dozen who met in New York to prepare the statement was Henry A. Atkinson, whose Soviet activities we have already discussed, and who is an old associate of Harry F. Ward. And there were other interesting meetings, such as the one held January 8-9, 1948, in Philadelphia, by the FCC's Department of International Justice and Goodwill. Background data on the "United Nations" was prepared by a committee chaired by Soviet agent Alger Hiss.76 And in February 1950, the Department of the Church and Economic Life held a conference in Detroit, presided over by Bishop Oxnam, at which the churchmen voted to recommend "the extensive use of taxation to reduce inequalities in income," 77 which as we have seen was exactly what Marx had in mind. On November 29, 1950, at a convention in Cleveland, the Federal Council of Churches changed its name to the National Council of Churches. NCC was simply the formal union of FCC and eleven agencies with which it had always interlocked—for instance, by sharing many of its officers. Indeed, the Federal Council Bulletin tells us

All the work of the Federal Council will continue under the new auspices ... it is expected that the program will be enlarged as the new organization gains increased support . . . other divisions in the National Council and the General administration of the Council will also draw upon the resources in both personnel and finances.78
It is important to observe that although the FCC-NCC claimed to speak for tens of thousands of congregations, with tens of millions of members, it was actually governed by the executive committee, which consisted of only seventy men. And over the years, as with the Soviet-controlled Methodist Federation for Social Action, many Americans have loudly complained about their activities. In 1927, for instance, Congressman Arthur M. Free "introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives describing the Federal Council as a communist organization aimed at the establishment of a state-church. . . ." 79 58

In 1930, in a report from Charlotte, North Carolina, we learn that the Mecklenburg Presbytery will ask at the forthcoming General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church that the general church body withdraw from FCC because it was then being investigated by Congress for its political activities. The Presbytery noted that FCC "has been charged from reliable sources with being in sympathy with communism and with Russian Soviet propaganda." 80 It seems there was an interesting series of hearings then going on in the Senate Lobby Committee in Washington, where a Representative Tinkham, a Republican from Massachusetts, was accusing FCC of trying to influence Congress on both domestic and foreign policies. FCC, he said, "had sought to influence his vote by propaganda, and several times had declined to furnish him a list of individuals contributing more than $500" in the years 1926-28. The Times says Tinkham was "armed with a brief-case bulging with documentary evidence in support of his statements." 81 Like the Council on Foreign Relations, FCC is of course a tax-exempt organization, and so according to law is supposed to keep its snout out of our legislation. But perhaps the most fascinating of Tinkham's contributions was a statement he issued in the next month about

FCC: Recent revelations show that John D. Rockefeller, Jr. contributed $35,650 in 1926; $32,717 in 1927; $36,250 in 1928 and $32,500 in 1929, about 10 per cent of the total annual income from all sources and about 35 to 45 per cent of the amounts received from contributors of $500 and over during those four years.

Tinkham added:
It is well known that the large international oil interests, international bankers and large international business interests are profoundly interested in having the United States change its foreign policy for their own purposes.82
And so once again, we see the curious presence in this Marxist mess of the same crowd who threw in with Colonel House in 1912. In the next year, 1931, General Douglas MacArthur was writing angrily as follows:

That men who wear the cloth of the church should openly defend repudiation of the laws of the land, with the neces-


sary implications and ramifications arising from such a general attitude toward our statutes, seems almost unbelievable. It will certainly hearten every potential or actual criminal and malefactor who either has, or contemplates breaking some other law. Anomalous as it seems, it apparently stamps the clergyman as a leading exponent of law violation at individual pleasure.83

And in 1935, the Office of Naval Intelligence issued a report describing the Federal Council of Churches as one of several organizations which "give aid and comfort to the Communist movement and Party." Its leadership, says ONI, "consists of a small radical group which dictates its policy,"
tional defense." 84 And in the same year, Admiral William H.

and "it is always extremely active in any matter against naStandley, Chief of Naval Operations, publicly accused the

Council of collaborating with Communism. 85 The point of all of which is to demonstrate that the true nature of the Federal Council of Churches wasn't any secret. Indeed, it was publicly available in the Council's own publications, and had been denounced for years by many responsible individuals.

But FCC's most interesting activities are yet to come.
Everything was going well, they were happily accumulating political power; but apparently they felt a slight malaise, an annoying itch in their urge to serve. Sure, they were beginning to merge all the different denominations into one national

church, they would soon have the country—but at the same
time they began to fret.

They wanted the world.
As we have seen, FCC had long been interested in international affairs. In 1930, for instance, as part of a campaign to get us into the World Court, then before the Senate, FCC apparently sent out a circular which the Washington Post called

"so grossly misleading that it can hardly be the product of ignorance." Indeed, we are told:
[the FCC circular] is nothing short of a swindle. It is an attempt to take advantage of the peace-loving sentiment of citizens in order to push through a scheme to entangle the United States in a foreign political system. Every church member who received one of these circulars should take the time to study the question personally. He can soon ver-

ify the fact that clever propagandists are at work attempting to deceive him.86 60

It was in 1937 that they really got organized. For years they had been itching with an idea for a World Council of Churches, and now they began to arrange the next, and one of the most important, in a series of conferences leading to it. They called it the World Conference on Life and Work.87 In America, the conference was mostly prepared by the Federal Council of Churches, says Hutchison.88 Indeed, one of the two men who directed the research was a gentleman by the name of John C. Bennett. 89 Bennett was vice chairman of the Department of the Church and Social Service of FCC,90 which as you will remember was principally the creature of Soviet agent Harry F. Ward and his close associate, Henry A. Atkinson, whose record of Soviet activities we have already discussed. Indeed, Bennett apparently has also served in Atkinson's old job as chairman of the Congregational Christian Church's Commission on Social Action.91 Today, of course, Bennett is president of the Union Theological Seminary, where for years Professors Ward and Niebuhr—whose record of Soviet activities we have already discussed—were busily turning out Marxist "Reverends." In the summer of that year, the gang got together in Oxford, England. Among the FCC agents who "took a prominent part," says the Council, was Dr. John A. Mackay— whose record of Soviet activities we have already discussed —who headed the Commission on The Church Universal and the World of Nations; and Reinhold Niebuhr, who made a speech.92 Bennett too "took a prominent part." He was secretary of the section dealing with the Church and the Economic Order,93 which called in its report, says Hutchison, for "increasing social control, heavier taxes and social legislation, credit schemes, cooperation and the like." 94 And the conference was conducted in the usual way. Here's what happened when the statement on Church, Community and State in relation to the Economic Order was presented to the Oxford Conference in plenary session:

A succession of speeches in support of the report was interrupted by the Archdeacon of Monmouth (the Ven. A.E. Monahan), who said that the report had never been voted on by the section in whose name it was presented. Nobody had been allowed to vote on it and the conference was not to be allowed to vote upon it. All it could do was to give a general approval. . . .95 61

Apparently the Venerable Monahan just didn't know what was good for him. In 1940 they struck again. At the same biennial meeting in December at which they officially adopted the statement called The American Churches and the International Situation—which as you will remember appeared to condone the violent seizure of the government—FCC decided to establish a Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and Durable Peace. You will be relieved to learn that they soon renamed it the Commission on a Just and Durable Peace. In its meeting on January 17, 1941, FCC's executive committee named as members of the new Commission's Committee of Direction Dr. Henry A. Atkinson, Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam and Dr. John C. Bennett.96 Reinhold Niebuhr says he was a member of the Commission "for years." 97 As you may imagine, COJDP was to do the same thing to churchgoers as the Council on Foreign Relations was already doing to the State Department. Accordingly, they began to publish a periodical, and in the second issue recommended a pamphlet called "On the Threshold of World Order" 98 by Vera Micheles Dean, a Socialist we learn more about later; "What Future for Japan?" by Lawrence K. Rosinger, a Soviet agent, published by the Foreign Policy Association, about both of which we will hear later; and something called "The Races of Mankind," by Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish, about whom you luckily won't have to hear anything more at all, but who, as chance would have it, have long records of Soviet activities. Indeed, Miss Weltfish was fired by Columbia University for refusing to say whether or not she was a Soviet agent." "The Races of Mankind"—recommended by the Commission on a Just and Durable Peace—was of course barred by the War Department after Congressional protest.100 In the next issue, we read of a visit to the White House by Oxnam and three others.101 Perhaps Roosevelt wanted to confess. As usual, COJDP held some highly interesting meetings. In March 1942, for instance, at Delaware, Ohio, it sponsored the National Study Conference on the Churches and a Just and Durable Peace, and decided, says Time,

that 'a new order of economic life is both imminent and imperative'—a new order that is sure to come either 'through voluntary cooperation within the framework of democracy or through explosive political revolution.'102 62

"Collectivism is coming, whether we like it or not," the delegates were told by Dr. William Paton of England. We don't. But that raises the question, then, doesn't it, of where it's going to come from? What we need, said the Commission, is taxation designed to "the end that our wealth may be more equitably distributed." And we might as well experiment with government ownership. "Every individual," we read, has an "obligation to work in some socially necessary service." They didn't say who decides what's socially necessary. Also, COJDP made some very interesting conclusions in foreign affairs. Reported Time: . . . Individual nations, it declared, must give up their armed forces 'except for preservation of domestic order' and allow the world to be policed by an international army and navy. . . . The ultimate goal: 'a duly constituted world government of delegated powers: an international legislative body, an international court with adequate jurisdiction, international administrative bodies with necessary powers, and adequate international police forces and provision for enforcing its worldwide economic authority.'

Then, July 8-11, 1943, in Princeton, New Jersey, the gang convened the International Round Table of Christian Leaders, with Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam as chairman. While American marines were dying on nameless South Pacific islands, the Round Table issued A Christian Message on World Order. The message reads:

... In the case of the Russian revolution, many of its avowed objectives are those which Christians have long accepted in principle but have largely failed to achieve in practice. . . . We believe that as Christian people demonstrate that they can achieve such beneficent social ends as are sought by the Russian revolution—and much more besides—many differences between us will tend to disappear. We need not now act on the assumption that those differences will persist to create a permanent barrier to world order.103
Communism according to the Round Table, is, in other words, good. Christians should work for it. The Communists don't have to do anything. They're already Communists. The more Communist we get, the less difference there will natu63

rally be between us. When we are all Communist there naturally won't be any difference between us. And in January 1945, in Cleveland, the Commission held
its second National Study Conference on the Churches and a Just and Durable Peace. The boys issued still another Message, prepared by a committee under the chairmanship of G. Bromley Oxnam,104 which explained that . . . many changes may be necessary in our economic practices. These changes will probably lie in the direction of a larger measure of social planning and control than characterized our pre-war system. . . . We should not allow our devotion to any single system or method to deny to anyone the basic requirements for 'the good life.' Nor should we allow our preference for our economic or political system to prevent us from collaborating, for the achievement of world order and world peace, with peoples who have a different system.105

It is interesting to observe that Americans were then dying supposedly to prevent National Socialist Hitler from changing their system, and that those Europeans who collaborated with that Socialist were of course called "collaborationists," and were shot by the underground. In August 1946, at a conference in Cambridge, England, sponsored jointly by the forthcoming World Council of Churches and the International Missionary Council, the gang formed the new Commission of the Churches on International Affairs. CCIA was established "to carry on internationally much the same functions which have been assigned in this country to the Commission on a Just and Durable Peace." 106 The new Commission had a very interesting composition. The president of the co-sponsoring International Missionary Council, of which CCIA now became an agency, was of course Dr. John A. Mackay, the noted Soviet-fronter and apologist for Socialist China. And both G. Bromley Oxnam and Reinhold Niebuhr, member of fourteen Soviet fronts, gave active assistance and were members.107 And then at last, at a conference in Amsterdam, in Holland, on August 23, 1948, they officially formed the World Council of Churches. G. Bromley Oxnam was made one of six co-presidents. Another was a gentleman named T. C. Chao, dean of Yenching University's School of Religion. Chao's known Communist record went back many years, and was in the files of the Netherlands government. When the So64

cialist armies of Mao Tse-tung arrived in China, Chao and his students of "theology" were "out in the streets welcoming them with open arms and saying that these were 'days of rejoicing for China!' Soon after this the Communist government of China gave Dr. Chao an official position. . . ." 108 Indeed, as co-president of WCC, Chao tried in a circular letter to justify Mao's "reform program" on the ground that it enabled the church to "energetically participate in the construction of the new China." The "reform program" includes house arrest for missionaries, compulsory indoctrination, and forcing Roman Catholic priests and nuns to marry.109 And Chao recommended during the Korean War that Christians "belittle America, curse America, and oppose America," because "Jesus Christ has commanded us to oppose sin." 110 Then there was Josef L. Hromadka, of Prague, Czechoslovakia, who was made a member of the Central Committee. It seems he was heartily in favor of the so-called Russian Revolution. During World War II, he came to America and was hired by his old friend, John Mackay, then president of the Princeton Theological Seminary. Later, he returned to Prague, and became "the leading Soviet mouthpiece" in all the Iron Curtain countries.111 At the Amsterdam Conference, Hromadka said the answer "is for the West to acknowledge its defeat and adjust itself to cooperating with the Communist movement. . . ."112 At another session—the Times calls it a "secret session"—he said that "He had been amazed in his recent contact with Soviet Russia at the genuine cultural freedom . . . enjoyed by the younger people there." 113 And as at the Oxford Conference more than ten years before, John C. Bennett played a prominent part. In a Preparatory Program, he wrote,
... To resist the extension of state control in the interests of a laissez-faire conception of economics may invite mass unemployment and such insecurity that it will prepare people to accept totalitarianism as a false remedy. This is a very precarious situation in which freedom depends upon finding a way that will bring the major centres of economic power under social control without creating the kind of state that regiments every phase of life. . . .114 In other words, a free economy could lead to totalitarianism—total state control. So the solution is to extend state 65

control to the major centres of economic power. That would prevent totalitarianism. Please don't get the idea that this is some sort of gag. It isn't. These boys don't fool around. Later on at the conference, Bennett was co-chairman of Section III along with Niebuhr, and wrote its report, "The Church and the Disorder of Society," in which he said:
The Christian churches should reject the ideologies of both capitalism and communism and should seek to draw men away from the false assumption that these are the only alternatives. . . .115 Soviet slaves of course would not be allowed to know that Bennett had urged them to reject Communism, and so the only function of his remark was—under a cloak of "objectivity"—to urge Americans to reject Capitalism. For instance, in a debate in Philadelphia on January 20, 1949, Communist official Ed Strong used Bennett's report, writes Rev. Carl McIntire, "to support his attack on capitalism and his offer of 'social democracy.' " 116 And as usual, the gang operated in the strictest secrecy. For six days, reports Harold E. Fey, "it was impossible for anybody not in the central committee of direction to know what was going on." 117 The sessions were censored. Reporters were not allowed to quote from debates. Only a limited number could attend the four assembly sessions and then only for background material.118 Why all the secrecy?—if religion was what the sessions were really all about. Indeed:

Back in the United States, after the World Council's assembly was over, Dr. Charles Clayton Morrison, editor emeritus of the Christian Century, modernist independent weekly, appeared before a ministers' meeting in Chicago and said that the report would be 'an embarrassment to the Christian churches for many years to come,' and that it was 'overloaded with communist sympathy.'119 So Bennett was too "modern" even for the modernists. It is no surprise that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover testified on March 26, 1947,
I confess to a real apprehension so long as Communists are able to secure ministers of the Gospel to promote their evil work and espouse a cause that is alien to the religion of Christ and Judaism.120 66

Herbert A. Philbrick, who in 1940 became chairman of a suburban Boston youth group, discovered that the Soviets had captured it. And Philbrick, who served for nine years as an FBIcounterspy, writes that in the secret underground where the Communists sent him, he found "a special subversive cell of hardened, disciplined, trained agents of Stalin, men who were ministers of the Gospel." Wrote Philbrick:
I am not guessing about this. I saw those ministers in action. . . . They knew exactly what they were doing. They were clergymen because it suited their purpose and that of their superiors to be clergymen.121

Perhaps we should take a closer look at a few of our ecclesiastical bullies.
1. Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Reps., Investigation of Communist Activities in the New York City Area, testimony of Joseph Zack Kornfeder, 83rd Cong., first sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print Off., 1953), part 6, pp. 2046-47. Kornfeder was a member of the Party's National Committee, and held other important Red jobs. In 1927, he went to Moscow for additional training at the Lenin school,

a political warfare college, for 2 years, and while there served with the Communist International. 2. Ibid., p. 2075. Gitlow was the first man in the United States convicted of being a Communist. He was a member of the Party's politburo and secretariat and at one time was its candidate for vice president. 3. Ibid., p. 2083. 4. Ibid., part 7, p. 2170. Quoted in testimony by Manning Johnson, former member of the National Committee of the Communist Party. 5. Christian Advocate, June 22, 1950, official monthly publication of the Methodist Church. Quoted in Edgar C. Bundy, Collectivism in the Churches (Wheaton, Illinois, Church League of America, 1958), p. 94. 6. E.N. Sanctuary, Tainted Contacts, Being a Compilation ofFacts of the Personnel and Activities of the Federal Councilof Churches of Christ in America (no city given, American Christian Defenders, 1931), p. 21. 7. Pp. 1115-16. Quoted by Bundy, op. cit.., pp. 130-31. 8. LeRoy F. Smith and E. B. Johns, Pastors, Politicians, Pacifists (Chicago, The Constructive Educational Publishing 67

22. Ibid., p. 10. 23. Testimony of Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3767. 24. Ibid., pp. 3780-88. 25. Woltman, in House Report No. 1661, op. cit., p. 11. 26. See General Charles A. Willoughby, Shanghai Conspiracy, (New York, E. P. Button & Company, 1952). 27. Gitlow, op. cit., p. 2130. 28. Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3601. Struik was so identified by four different people. 29. Gitlow, op. cit., p. 2090. 30. Ibid., p. 2104. 31. Ibid., pp. 2107-08. 32. Ibid., pp. 2120-21. 33. Ibid., p. 2128. 34. Loc. cit. 35. Chicago Herald-Examiner, May 6, 1937. Quoted in House Report No. 1661, op. cit., p. 4. 68

Co., 1927), p. 95. 9. Kornfeder, op. cit., p. 2050. 10. Investigation of Communist Activities in the New York City Area, op. cit., p. 2140. 11. Ibid., p. 2169. 12. Gitlow, op. cit., p. 2084-85, 2095. The name of the Methodist Federation for Social Service was later changed to the Methodist Federation for Social Action. 13. Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Reps., Testimony of Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, 83rd Cong., first sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1954), p. 3742. Or see Manning Johnson, op. cit., p. 2197. 14. Oxnam, op. cit., pp. 3743-44. 15. Gitlow, op. cit., p. 2114. Manning Johnson also identifies McMichael, op. cit., pp. 2198-99. 16. Bureau County Republican (Princeton, Illinois), October 13, 1938. Quoted in Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Reps., Review of the Methodist Federation for Social Action, Formerly The Methodist Federation for Social Service, House Report No. 1661, 82nd Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1952), p. 5. 17. Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Reps., Investigation of Un-American Propaganda Activities in the United States, testimony of Dr. Theodore Graebner, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo., 75th Cong., third sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1939), Vol. 4, p. 3010. 18. Bureau County Republican, May 18, 1939. Quoted in House Report No. 1661, op. cit., p. 6. 19. Frederick Woltman in the New York World-Telegram. Quoted in House Report No. 1661, op. cit., p. 9. 20. Woltman, Loc. cit. 21. Ibid., p. 8.

36. Gitlow, op. cit., pp. 2094-95. 37. Bundy, op. cit., p. 101. 38. John C. Bennett, Howard R. Bowen, William Adams Brown, Jr., G. Bromley Oxnam, Christian Values and Economic Life (New York, Harper & Bros., 1954), p. 4. 39. Bundy, op. cit., p. 4. 40. Harry F. Ward, A Year Book of the Church and Social Service in the United States, prepared for the Commission on the Church and Social Service of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, (New York, Fleming H. Revell Company, 1914), p. 26. 41. Smith and Johns, op. cit., p. 25. 42. Ward, op. cit., p. 9. 43. Samuel McCrea Cavert (ed.), The Churches Allied for Common Tasks (New York, Federal Council of Churches, 1921), p. 411. 44. Ward, op. cit., p. 77. 45. Smith and Johns, op. cit., p. 25. Or see John A. Hutchison, We Are Not Divided (New York, Round Table Press, 1941), p. 110. 46. Ward, op. cit., pp. 25-26. 47. Ibid., p. 9. 48. Cavert, op. cit., pp. 166, 411, 413. 49. Bundy, op. cit., p. 79. 50. 1948 Report, pp. 93, 225, 320. Quoted in Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3629. 51. Annual Report, 1934, p. 211. 52. Annual Report, 1936, p. 239. 53. Biennial Report, 1942, p. 145. 54. Biennial Report, 1944, p. 200. 55. Social Questions Bulletin, December, 1944. Cited by Gitlow, op. cit., p. 2114. 56. Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3734. 57. Annual Report, 1936, p. 240. 58. Biennial Report, 1942, p. 145. 59. Reported by both the Presbyterian Outlook and Religious News Service on January 16, 1950. Quoted by Bundy, op. cit., pp. 185-86. 60. Edward Duff, S. J., The Social Thought of the World Council of Churches (London, Longmans, Green and Co., 1956), p. 283. 61. Bundy, op. cit., p. 250. Letter to him of June 10, 1954. 62. Mackay was a member of the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, and remained a member even after other ministers withdrew because of its activities. From an editorial in Christian Herald, by Dr. Daniel A. Poling, in Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Reps., Investigation of Communist Activities in the New York City Area, Hearings, 83rd Cong., first sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print Off., 1953), part 5, p. 2025. 69

A letterhead dated April 6, 1939, of the American League for Peace and Democracy, lists Harry F. Ward as national chairman; James S. Alien, Clarence Hathaway and Dr. Max Yergan, all Communists openly, as members of the Executive Board—and the Rev. John A. Mackay as a member of the National Committee. The letterhead is Oxnam Exhibit No. 11, in Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3638. The American League for Peace and Democracy was cited as Communist by Attorney General Tom Clark in letters to the Loyalty Review Board released June 1, 1948, and September 21, 1948; by Attorney General Francis Biddle in a memorandum printed in the Congressional Record of September 24, 1942, pp. 7683-84; by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities in reports of January 3, 1939, pp. 69-71, January 3, 1940, p. 10, January 3, 1941, p. 21, June 25, 1942, pp. 14-16, January 2, 1943, p. 8, and March 29, 1944, p. 37; by the California Committee on Un-American Activities, 1943 report, p. 91; the Massachusetts House Committee on Un-American Activities, 1938 report, pp. 77 and 213; by the Rapp-Coudert Committee, 1942 report, p. 220; the Special Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, report of April 21, 1943, p. 3; the New York City Council Committee investigating the Municipal Civil Service Commission; the Pennsylvania Commonwealth counsel before the reviewing board of the Philadelphia County Board of Assistance, January, 1942. Cited in Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3624. Oxnam Exhibit No. 13 is a masthead of The Protestant, which lists Mackay as an Editorial Adviser. Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3644. Oxnam Exhibit No. 19 is a letter dated July 6, 1938, on stationery of the Medical Bureau and North American Committee to Aid Spanish Democracy, which lists Mackay as a national sponsor. Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3669. The Medical Bureau was cited as a Communist front by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities in its report of March 29, 1944, p. 82; by the California Committee on Un-American Activities, 1948 report, pp. 319, 335-36; the Massachusetts House Committee on Un-American Activities, 1938 report, pp. 394-95; and the Special Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, report of April 21, 1943, p. 3. Cited in Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3652. Oxnam Exhibit No. 21 shows Mackay to be a member, according to a letterhead dated January 21, 1946, of the Interfaith Committee of the American Committee for Spanish Freedom. Oxnam op. cit., p. 3678. The organization was cited as Communist by Attorney General Tom Clark, in a letter to the Loyalty Review Board released April 27, 1949. The California Committee on UnAmerican Activities, 1948 report, p. 115, says that "the key 70

position of this Communist front is held by a member of the Communist Party. Alien Chase is the secretary. In 1936 Alien Chase was a candidate for Congress in New York on the Communist Party ticket." Quoted in Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3656. 63. Cavert, op. cit., pp. 326, 404. 64. Annual Report, 1933, p. 75. 65. Annual Report, 1936, p. 239. 66. Hutchison, op. cit., p. 102. 67. Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Reps., Investigation of Un-American Propaganda Activities in the United States, 78th Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1944), Vol. 17, pp. 10340-49. 68. Testimony of Walter S. Steele, 75th Cong., third sess., 1938, Vol. 1, p. 463. 69. The convention at which Niebuhr collaborated with Communists Browder, Flynn, Yergan, Marinello and Bedacht was an official meeting of the American League Against War and Fascism, held in Pittsburgh in November, 1937. At the convention, Dr. Harry F. Ward, the head of the League, openly praised "the Communist Party and Communists," says Steele. Indeed, page 21 of the organization's own Program Against War and Fascism, published by its national committee in July, 1936, says that the League "was founded at the first United States congress against war, held in New York City in September, 1933. The steering committee which organized this congress was composed of Communists and non-Communists. . . . Communists have continued in positions of prominence in the league. ... It is natural enough that they should be proud of their part in founding the league and should claim a large share of credit for its success." See Steele, op. cit., pp. 459, 462. Niebuhr was also a member of the United States Congress Against War, listed as subversive by the Attorney General (Investigation of Un-American Propaganda Activities, op. cit., Vol. 17, p. 10306); and he was a member, as of April 4, 1939, of the National Committee of the American League for Peace and Democracy, the new name of the League Against War and Fascism (Inv. of Un-American Prop. Acts., op. cit., 76th Cong., first sess., 1940, Vol. 10, p. 6278). Manning Johnson Exhibit No. 22 is an article from the Protestant Digest of April, 1939, which indicates that William B. Spofford and Harry F. Ward are members, and that Reinhold Niebuhr is chairman, of the executive committee of the United Christian Council for Democracy. Johnson testifies that "the policy of the organization is based upon the program of the Communist Party for the infiltration of the various Protestant denominations on the basis of conditioning them mentally, organizationally for the overthrow 71

of the Government of the United States." Johnson, op. cit., pp. 2231, 2233. Indeed, J. B. Matthews testifies that the Council is composed of two organizations "which are substantially under the influence of the Communist Party at the moment. "Among the basic principles adopted by this group of clergymen, are the following: " '1. We reject the profit-seeking economy and the capitalistic way of life with its private ownership of the things upon which the lives of all depend. " '4. We propose to support the necessary political and economic action to implement these aims.' " Inv. of UnAmerican Prop. Acts., op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 920. And Oxnam testifies that Niebuhr was also a member of the editorial board of the Protestant Digest. Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3631. He was also a member of the National Citizens' Political Action Committee, according to a list submitted by NCPAC itself, and Matthews testifies that: ". . . Checking the 141 names on this list of the National Citizens' Action Committee against the 25 organizations which the Attorney General has characterized as subversive and Communist, we find 82 of the 141 have been affiliated with one or more of these 25 organizations. . . ." In fact: "I should point out at this point that the Attorney General was not investigating the entire field of Communist front organizations. His investigation was restricted to those organizations with which it was alleged Federal Government employees were affiliated, which was a much smaller field than the entire list of Communist fronts. So that tomorrow, when we come to the question of the entire field of Communist front organizations, we will find that considerably more than 82 members of the National Citizens Political Action Committee were affiliated with Communist front organizations. ..." ". . . If the list of membership . . . had been drawn up by Earl Browder personally in Communist Party headquarters, it would be difficult to see how that list would have varied in any important respect. . . ." And therefore: "It seems to me that that is the unavoidable conclusion, that this is the Communist Party's major front organization. Furthermore, it represents the Communist Party's supreme bid for power throughout its 25 years of history in the United States. . . ." Inv. of Un-American Prop. Acts., op. cit., Vol. 17, pp. 10300-03. Niebuhr was a member of the Advisory board of the American Student Union, along with such others as Roger Baldwin, George Counts, Norman Thomas, Robert Morss Lovett and Freda Kirchwey. The ASU, says Steele, "was organized at a joint meeting of the Communist National Student League and the Socialist Student League for Indus72

trial Democracy, held in the Y.W.C.A. at Columbus, Ohio, December 28-29, 1935. . . . The Communist unit had inveigled the Socialist youth into participating in the congress, usurped the leadership of the organization, and have used it as an adjunct to the young Communist movement all during its short life.
"In a report to Moscow, the Communists refer to the American Student Union as one of its greatest triumphs in the United States...." Steele, op. cit., pp. 474-75. Baldwin, says Steele, "is known best for his statements made before the Fish committee, one of which was to the effect that the American Civil Liberties Union upholds the right of aliens or nationals to advocate murder, assassination, and the overthrow of our Government by force and violence. . . ." Steele, op. cit., p. 462. Thomas, Counts and Lovett are of course well known Marxist agents. And Kirchwey was, among other things, a contributor to the Communist publication, New Masses. Niebuhr was also listed as an endorser of Brookwood College, along with Charles C. Webber, Harry F. Ward, Wm. B. Spofford and Jerome Davis. Steele, op. cit., p. 566. In the August 9, 1928, issue of the Washington Star, we learn that the executive council of the American Federation of Labor has asked all labor organizations to withdraw support to the college. "The charge against Brookwood is, of course, that it is out of accord with the principles and policies of the American Federation of Labor, which means that its teachings are Communist. "Action followed the filing of a report made by Matthew Woll under direction of President Green. In the report it is charged that three members of the Brookwood faculty also are lecturers in a New York Communist school. . . ." Steele, op. cit., p. 565. And Niebuhr was a member, along with Spofford and Baldwin, of the executive committee of American Friends of Spanish Democracy, one of the outfits created to help the Communist side of the war in Spain. Steele, op. cit., p. 568. He was also listed as an "active leader and lecturer" of the League for Industrial Democracy, which advocates Marxian Socialism based upon the Communist Manifesto; which in February, 1920, called for "a resort to violence"; and which is the same organization that used to be called the Intercollegiate Socialist Society—one of the influential leaders of which, as we have seen, was Dulles's good friend, Walter Lippmann. Robert W. Dunn and Alexander Trachtenberg, both Communists, have been officially connected with LID-ISS, of course, as has Communist spy Frederick Vanderbilt Field, a member 73

of its board of directors, about whom we will hear more later. Inv. of Un-American Prop. Acts., op. cit., Vol. 1. pp. 683, 690. 70. "Social Ideals of the Churches" (pamphlet), (New York, Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, Department of the Church and Social Service, 1933), p. 10. 71. Ibid., pp. 10, 12. 72. Ibid., p. 19. 73. Biennial Report, 1938, pp. 151, 165. 74. Biennial Report, 1940, p. 212. 75. Federal Council of Churches, (pamphlet) "The American Churches and the International Situation," (New York, Federal Council of Churches, 1940), p. 2. 76. Biennial Report, 1948, p. 105. 77. Bundy, op. cit., p.. 140. 78. December, 1950. Quoted by Bundy, op. cit., p. 49. 79. Hutchison, op. cit., p. 216. 80. New York Times, April 19, 1930, p. 17. 81. Ibid., April 10, 1930, pp. 1, 5. 82. Ibid., May 22, 1930, p. 30.

83. Sanctuary, op. cit., p. 40. 84. Congressional Record, 1935, p. 13503. Quoted by Bundy, op. cit., pp. 77-78. 85. Hutchison, op. cit., p. 217. 86. Washington Post (editorial), December 30, 1930. Quoted by Sanctuary, op. cit., pp. 13-14. 87. Also called the Oxford World Conference on Church, Community and State. 88. Op. cit., p. 245.

89. Ibid., p. 246. 90. Federal Council of Churches, Annual Report, 1936, p. 244. 91. Carl McIntire, Modern Tower of Babel (Collingswood, New Jersey, Christian Beacon Press, 1949), p. 141. 92. Annual Report, 1937, p. 48. 93. McIntire, op. cit. 94. Hutchison, op. cit., pp. 258-59. 95. London Times, July 21, 1937, p. 9. 96. Federal Council of Churches, Annual Report, 1941, pp. 93-94. Or see New York Times, May 19, 1941, p. 12. 97. The Christian Century, Vol. 61, No. 43, October 25, 1944, p. 1231. 98. Post War World, Vol. 1, No. 2, February 15, 1944, p. 2. 99. ". . . Dr. Benedict has been a sponsor of American Committee for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom; American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born; American Committee To Save Refugees; American Friends of the Chinese People; and the League of American Writers, all of which have been listed in the Guide to Subversive Organiza74

tions and Publications, which was released by the House UnAmerican Activities Committee on May 14, 1951. According to the Communist Party publication Daily Worker of January 6, 1944, page 3, Dr. Benedict was a lecturer at the Jefferson School of Social Science, which Attorney General Tom Clark has cited as an 'adjunct of the Communist Party.' " Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, House of Reps., Tax-Exempt Foundations, Hearings, sworn statement of Dr. Felix Wittmer, 83rd Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C. U.S. Gov't. Print Off., 1954), pp. 1215-16. 100. Loc. cit. 101. Post War World, Vol. 1, No. 3, April 15, 1944, p. 4. 102. Time, Vol. 39, No. 11, March 16, 1942, pp. 47-48. 103. International Round Table of Christian Leaders, "A Christian Message on World Order" (pamphlet) (Princeton, New Jersey, Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and Durable Peace, 1943), pp. 9-10. 104. Second National Study Conference on the Churches and a Just and Durable Peace, "A Message to the Churches" (pamphlet) (New York, Commission on a Just and Durable Peace, 1945), p. 4,

105. Ibid., p. 8.
106. Federal Council of Churches, Biennial Report, 1946, p. 61. 107. New York Times, February 25, 1946, p. 7. 108. Bundy, op. cit., pp. 209-10. 109. Time, Vol. 56, No. 16, October 16, 1950, p. 74. 110. Bundy, op. cit., p. 210. 111. Ibid., pp. 211-12. 112. The Christian Century, Vol. 65, No. 36, September 8, 1948, p. 900. Or (New York Times, August 25, 1948), p. 1. 113. New York Times, August 27, 1948, p. 5. 114. John C. Bennett (editor), "Man's Disorder and God's Design, Preparatory Program for the First Assembly of the World Council of Churches" (pamphlet) (World Council of Churches, 1946), p. 26. 115. The Christian Century, Vol. 65, No. 37, September 15, 1948, p. 949. Or see New York Times, September 3, 1948, p. 11. 116. McIntire, op. cit., p. 102. 117. Christian Century, Vol. 65, No. 37, September 15, 1948, p. 949. 118. Portland (Oregon) Daily Journal (editorial), "Secrecy Refutes 'I Am Light of World,' " August 27, 1948. Quoted by McIntire, op. cit., p. 44. 119. McIntire, op. cit., p. 24. 120. Quoted by J. B. Matthews, "Reds and Our Churches," American Mercury, Vol. 77, July, 1953, pp. 4-5. Hoover was 75

testifying before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. 121. From an article in Christian Herald, in Investigation of Communist Activities in the New York City Area, op. cit., part. 5 pp. 2021-22.


. . . More than once I have seen the statement that as president of the Council I was taking my orders 'from Moscow'—a silly falsehood, for who could imagine the capital of the Soviet Republic having anything to do with a minister of the Christian religion? .. .1

Edgar DeWitt Jones

REINHOLD NIEBUHR has been, for years, one of the most influential professors in the Union Theological Seminary— along with Soviet agent Harry F. Ward. For years they were busily turning out "Reverends." Niebuhr is regarded by some as a philosopher. Here are some samples of his philosophy: ". . . If, as Bertrand Russell prophesies," Niebuhr writes in 1932, "some form of oligarchy, whether capitalistic or communistic, be inevitable in. a technological age . . . the communistic oligarch would seem to be preferable in the long run to the capitalistic one. . . ." 2 In other words, young man, pick Communism. Niebuhr has interesting things to say of the Marxian proletarian :

. . . His confidence in the inevitability of revolution and the efficacy of violence may have a measure of truth. . . . If a season of violence can establish a just social system and can create the possibilities of its preservation, there is no purely ethical ground upon which violence and revolution can be ruled out. . . .3
Philosopher Niebuhr apparently would endorse the violent seizure of the American government. The only issue, he says, isn't whether or not it's right or wrong—but whether the Marxists can keep it once they grab it. So it's reasonable to assume that Reinhold Niebuhr, of the then Federal Council of Churches, is one of the people FCC had in mind when it said in "The American Churches and 77

the International Situation" that some of the councillors advocate the use of violence. Two years later, the Philosopher is back: . . . No feudal squire ever beat down his rebellious serfs more ruthlessly than the industrial oligarch does when he finds his reign imperilled by the men who run his machines without respect for or loyalty to his power.4

The "serfs" were of course the slaves in Czarist Russia. "The disintegration of capitalism through overproduction," says the Philosopher, "is more obvious in America than in any other nation but it is not yet obvious to the American mind." 5 So in America the problem is overproduction. The auto makers deliberately produce more than they can sell. None of this is obvious to the American mind, though. They're too busy driving around. In India, where there are no cars, everybody knows it. There's time to think. Niebuhr's psychology is interesting:

The creed of individualism may lead to the enslavement of individuals by powerful men and groups because it discourages adequate social checks upon their power. It may also lead to the absorption of the individual into the crowd by robbing individuality of the resources necessary to resist the mass. The tendency of individualism to destroy the inner resources of the individual is a sad and pathetic aspect of modern history.6 So to encourage strong, proud, resourceful individuals, says Niebuhr, may lead to the enslavement of individuals. The solution is to encourage weak, abject, helpless "individuals"— collectivists. This presumably would prevent enslavement. The trouble with individualism, says the Philosopher, is that it tends to absorb the individual into the crowd—to encourage collectivism. You see, a resourceful individual lacks inner resources. He isn't able to resist the mass. Indeed, says Niebuhr, modern society must move "with inexorable logic toward collectivism. ... In moving toward this goal modern society is merely reappropriating the experience of primitive society. In the hunting and pastoral periods of civilization there was a large measure of common ownership. . . . " And the more "inevitable and desirable" we realize this is, "the quicker will be the period of transition in which society 78

now lives and the more certainly will the dangers of barbarism be avoided." 7 In short, says the Philosopher, the quicker we exchange our industrial society for primitive conditions, the less chance there will be of barbarism. It is important to remember that, funny though all this is, it is definitely no joke. In the next year, Niebuhr rested. All he had to say was that "The attachment of radical Christianity to Marxian viewpoints, even though on occasion unqualified, represents a gain in religious as well as moral realism. . . ." 8 But in 1944, he's back with another blockbuster:
The bourgeois notions about property contain two errors, closely related to each other. The one error is the excessive individualism of the bourgeois property concept, which is part and parcel of a general exaggeration of individual freedom in middle-class existence. . . .9

The Philosopher says straight out that we're suffering from an overdose of individual freedom. In 1949, he's still at it: The new evils which have been introduced into modern history by this new fanaticism must not, however, obscure the fact that Marxism is the perversion of a profound truth. ... Its program of the socialization of property is a proximate answer to the immediate problem of achieving justice in a technical age. . . .10 Three years later, in the middle of the "cold war," Niebuhr introduces a new technique: now he's an "anti-Communist." As we have seen, Colonel House warned that sometimes it would be necessary to curb one's enthusiasm and veil one's thought: . . . The justice which we have established in our society has been achieved, not by pure individualism, but by collective action. We have balanced collective social power with collective social power. In order to prevail against our communist foe we must continue to engage in vast collective ventures, subject ourselves to far-reaching national and international disciplines and we must moderate the extravagance of our theory by the soberness of our practice. . . .11 So our collectivist foe is trying to destroy our country by imposing collectivism on our people. And the way to prevent 79

this, says the Philosopher, is to engage in vast collective ventures and impose on our people far-reaching disciplines. And he winds up in 1957, by reprinting a 1934 call for destruction and upheaval: . . . We expect no basic economic justice without a destruction of the present disproportion of power and we do not expect the latter without a social struggle. . . .12 Which is probably why Senate investigator Dr. J. B. Matthews testified: ... a significant clerical group under Professor Niebuhr's influence is able to rationalize and to some extent at least justify the perpetration of almost any crime because it serves, as Lenin said, 'the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.' . . . Until we come to understand his effect on a wide section of Protestant clergymen in this country, we are not going to get very far in understanding the way in which the church is integrated, in part, into this whole Communist movement.13 Then there is the Rev. Dr. John C. Bennett, president of the Union Theological Seminary. In 1935, he writes in a preface that he is indebted to Niebuhr not only for reading his manuscript, but "for more conscious and unconscious borrowings from his rich thought than I am able to specify. . . ." 14 Bennett speaks, for instance, of the "victims of the capitalistic system." 15 And like Niebuhr, he ends with a bang: Fascism, he tells us—yes, Fascism—"may have some constructive value as a stage in the development of a new economic order." 16 Yes, dear reader, that is correct, the president of the Union Theological Seminary believes that Fascism may have some value. On second thought, though, this isn't surprising, is it, because Fascism is simply another variety of Socialism, first introduced by Mussolini, a Socialist. In the next year, Bennett writes that Capitalism permits "a staggering degree of inequality," and "puts a premium on selfishness and deception," and therefore: ". . . An economic order based upon the social ownership of the large sources of wealth and power would probably be far more favorable than capitalism for the Christian life. . . ." 17 In 1937, he reviews a book by Harry W. Laidler of the 80

League for Industrial Democracy, an organization which was run by identified House-man Walter Lippmann and several Soviet agents, and naturally advocated the violent seizure of the American government. The book, says Bennett, "would be equally helpful for the liberal who is attempting to reform capitalism and for the radical who believes in more fundamental change. . . ." It is "intended to be a handbook," he explains, "for the person who is working for the next steps along any one of eighteen different lines. . . ." 18 In 1946, Bennett also reviews with approval the Fellowship of Socialist Christians, who are working for "the social ownership and control of the chief centers of economic power." 19 And two years later, he strikes again: ". . . Russian policy in dealing with racial minorities in the Soviet Union has always been a strong point in favor of Communism." 20 Marx and Lenin, we read, were "supreme examples" of men "moved by moral conviction." 21 Indeed:

The whole Communist attack upon capitalistic society is ethical through and through. This comes out in the technical discussions of surplus value in Capital and in the highly emotional exhortations of the Communist Manifesto. It is apparent in the motives that cause individuals to become Communists, that cause many of them to sacrifice their own personal privileges and to endure all manner of hardships and persecutions. Motives are mixed in all of us and Communism can be an expression of sheer personal rebellion and of hatred, but its great leaders often are driven by an outraged sense of justice of which one of the by-products may be hatred. . . .22
Bennett was apparently getting some complaints from fledgling churchmen who were disturbed by Socialism's terror tactics. He deals with them:

One extenuating factor is often present where we find evidences of Communist terror—the terror is a stage in a vicious circle in which some kind of reactionary terror has preceded. In eastern Europe, in Yugoslavia for example, there seems to be little to choose between red and white forms of terror. . . .23
The Socialist terror, in short, is no reason to complain. Indeed, Bennett says again that Lenin—who originated the 81

Socialist terror—is a man of "integrity," who served a cause "that could claim high moral sanction." 24 And in 1950, he tells us: ... I do not believe that American Christians could condemn communism because of its belief that revolution, even violent revolution, is sometimes necessary.25 So we logically have the right to assume that John C. Bennett, of the Federal Council of Churches, is another one of those Councilmen mentioned in "The American Churches and the International Situation," who appear to advocate or approve or condone the violent seizure of the American government. And two years later, he's still at it: "Communism wins power because it has much truth in its teachings, because it appeals to the loyalties and not primarily to the cynical selfinterests of man. . . ." As the Christian studies it: he finds many things to approve in it. I refer to such things as the Communist criticism of many features of capitalism and imperialism, the Communist practice in regard to racial discrimation, the Communist goal of a classless society, the generous motives that inspire many people to give themselves to communism with selfless commitments. Then there are many particular elements in Communist propaganda at a given time that may appeal. . . .26

And in 1954, in one of a series of volumes produced by a study committee of FCC, we learn that Bennett, too, has become an "anti-Communist": Americans should recognize, he says, that: where there is need for quick centralized action to solve dangerous social problems that, as long as they remain unsolved, invite the deceptive communist remedy, a democratic form of socialism may be the most viable form of economic organization. That only goes to show that there is no one Christian economic system.27

If there is no one Christian economic system, why is Bennett so hot to install Socialism? Observe that like Niebuhr he says the way to prevent the Russians from imposing Socialism on America, is for us to do it ourselves. Indeed:
. . . Society has a moral responsibility to level up and level down wealth and income to such an extent that people are not deeply divided from each other by this factor of economic inequality. . . .28 82

And in 1964, he is saying that the United States "would benefit from having more of a socialist impulse in its tradition to correct the individualism which is dominant. . . ." 29 But the Master Virtuoso of them all, is without doubt Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam. In 1923, we read:

[Oxnam] will preside at the meeting called by Upton Sinclair, Socialist author, to be held this evening at Walker Auditorium, to protest against the methods employed by authorities in handling the IWW strike at the harbor.30 Twenty-five years later, speaking before the World Missionary Assembly in Columbus, Ohio, he said the church should "move in on the economic order so that it will be rebased and remotivated." Self-interest, he feels, should be replaced by a "service drive." The church should also "reach into the mind" of our various intellectual leaders, who will make the change possible. Mrs. Vera Micheles Dean, the Socialist—whose pamphlet Oxnam's Commission on a Just and Durable Peace recommended in 1944—was also there and also spoke.31 On July 21, 1953, Oxnam discussed his long record of Soviet activities with the House Committee on Un-American Activities. It seems that in 1938 and 1939, Oxnam was a national sponsor, along with John A. Mackay, of the Medical Bureau and North American Committee to Aid Spanish Democracy,32 which as we have seen was a Soviet front. From March 1940, to February 1942, Oxnam was a member of the editorial board, along with Reinhold Niebuhr, of the Protestant Digest, 33 which was a Soviet publication. John A. Mackay was an editorial adviser when the publication was called The Protestant. In the issue of The Protestant in which Oxnam has an article, there is also a piece by Hewlett Johnson, the "red dean" of Canterbury, and another by Cedric Belfrage. Belfrage, says Congressman Gordon Scherer, "testified before this committee and was identified as a member of the Communist Party. He is now being deported by the Department of Justice." 34 This was unfortunate, because Belfrage had served earlier, during the war, as press control officer for somebody named Dwight Eisenhower.35 Small wonder that many people have grave worries about Elsenhower's cooperation with Communists. Oxnam at this point gave some interesting testimony. His relationships with these various Communist organizations, he says, "was prior to the time that they were declared subver83

sive and I had resigned from these two or three organizations prior to that time. I want that in the record." "Bishop," asks Congressman Scherer, "weren't they declared subversive because of the activities they engaged in during the time that you were connected with them?" And Oxnam replies, "I am not familiar with when these organizations were declared subversive. . . ." 36 So Oxnam knows exactly when they were declared subversive, when it comes to demonstrating that he had quit beforehand—but he doesn't have any idea at all when they were declared subversive, when it comes to demonstrating that he was connected with them during the time they were subversive. Interesting. Moreover, it seems there were more than two or three organizations. On April 22, 1943, for instance, The Citizens' Victory Committee for Harry Bridges issued a letter which included the signature of G. Bromley Oxnam.37 The Victory Committee was of course a Soviet organization.38 Also during the war, Oxnam was for a time chairman of the executive committee of the Massachusetts Council of American-Soviet Friendship,39 and a sponsor of the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship.40 The National Council was later cited as Communist by, for instance, the Special Committee on Un-American Activities in its report of March 29, 1944.41 Oxnam was invited into the Massachusetts group by Professor Dirk J. Struik, of MIT, who was later identified by four different witnesses as a Soviet agent. He was also a contributor to Social Questions Bulletin, published by Oxnam's Soviet-controlled Methodist Federation for Social Action, but Oxnam met him only "half a dozen times," and "didn't know" he was a Communist.42 The good bishop defends his sponsorship of the National crowd by quoting a statement sent to it in November 1945 —almost two years after it was declared subversive—and written by a gentleman by the name of Dwight Elsenhower: ". . . As an American soldier and lover of peace I wish your council the utmost success in the worthy work it has undertaken." 43 It is inconceivable that Elsenhower—with his knowledge of wholesale Soviet atrocities—could be so interested in "friendship" with them. In the same year, 1945, Oxnam published an article in Soviet Russia Today.44 Soviet Russia Today was a Soviet front.45 Then there is the Progressive Citizens of America. In 1947, in its report, the California Committee on Un-Ameri84

can Activities described it as a Soviet front. 46 In December of that year, the Progressives issued a letter denouncing the Federal House Committee on Un-American Activities. The letter was signed by five Communists and G. Bromley Oxnam.47 Oxnam has "no recollection of any association with that whatever." 48 And there is a pamphlet called An American Churchman in the Soviet Union, by Rev. Louie D. Newton, with an introduction by Oxnam and published by the American-Russian Institute, a group cited by Attorney General Clark in 1949 as a Soviet organization.49 Oxnam "didn't know" who was going to publish it. Newton is just a "dear personal friend." 50 The Committee says Oxnam wrote that his dear personal friend "reports that his Baptist coreligionists are of the opinion that they are free to preach what they believe and to practice their beliefs without any hindrance of the State. . . ."51 Which is probably why Newton's pamphlet was circulated by the Communist Party of the State of Illinois.52 There was also Oxnam's talk, on April 4, 1952, at the Church of Rev. Stephen H. Fritchman in Los Angeles,53 of whom Congressman Jackson remarks, In all of the city of Los Angeles there is perhaps no individual who has been so closely associated with the Communist Party or Communist-front organizations over a period of many years as has Reverend Fritchman. . . .54

As we have seen, Oxnam was for years an active member, and then vice president and member of the executive committee, of the Soviet-controlled Methodist Federation for Social Action. Oxnam continued as a member, and comrade Winifred Chappell continued as secretary, even after she advised American boys to sabotage American industry. You see, Oxnam "didn't know" she was a Communist.55 When loyal American Methodists demanded that Charles C. Webber be removed as a minister, Oxnam appointed him chaplain to organized labor. 56 Webber was co-secretary of the Methodist Federation and recommended the nationalization of our industry under the communal plan. Oxnam was a close associate of Harry F. Ward's: ... I was very, very fond of him. I took dictation from him as a part-time secretary in the dictation of one of his books. I knew his family. Professor Ward was a leader in 85

the social movement of the Methodist Church and over a long period of time rendered, I believe, very valuable service.57 Oxnam says he lost sympathy with Ward in 1928, because of his Soviet orientation. Yet in a letter dated March 17 of that year, on stationery reading "Methodist Federation of Social Service, Anniversary Celebration," and listing Oxnam as executive secretary, he writes: ". . . Professor Ward delivered a compelling message, shot through with prophetic fire, and characterized by penetrating analysis. We were tremendously helped." 58 And in May 1939, at the MFSS convention, Oxnam "paid a high tribute" to Soviet agent Ward, "whom he regarded as one of the greatest leaders in the new industrial, social, economic planning movement." 59 The bishop testifies that "that report was a false report," and was also "vicious," but after a bit of imperialist pressure applied by members of the California Committee, he finally remembers that he did indeed say something nice about Soviet agent Ward: " . . . I no doubt used some words of tribute in connection with Professor Ward. . . ." 60 In 1946, the Socialist-controlled Federal Council of Churches issued a Statement on Soviet-American Relations. Oxnam was then president of FCC, and was chairman of the committee that did the drafting.61 As usual, we read, Within the Soviet Union there are many people who share such Christian beliefs. Moreover, communism as an economic program for social reconstruction has points of contact with the social message of Christianity as in its avowed concern for the underprivileged and its insistence on racial quality. . . .62 In short, it has points to recommend it to good Christians. . . . Our people generally consider the faith and institutions of Soviet communism to contain grave evils. But they must recognize the right of others to believe what their reason and conscience may dictate, to reflect their beliefs in human institutions, and by fair means to propagate them. . . . Soviet Russia "isn't" a dictatorship just like Hitler's. Not at all. In fact, Russians "believe" what their reason and conscience dictate, "reflect those beliefs" in human institutions, and "propagate them fairly"—all of which is none of our business. 86

For instance, we read, we should not acquire any new military bases close to Russia. We are told that "neither state socialism nor free enterprise provides a perfect economic system; each can learn from the experience of the other." Since this advice will never be distributed in Socialist Russia—where people "believe what their reason and conscience dictate"—and is worded in this way only to prove the statement's objectivity, the net meaning is that we should learn from the experience of state Socialism. . . . The free enterprise system has yet to prove that it can assure steady production and employment. It has yet to prove that it can continuously provide industrial workers with that sense of individual creativeness which gives greater satisfaction than mere material possession. The Soviet experiment has yet to prove that it can develop high productive efficiency or that it is compatible with human freedom. So Niebuhr is wrong. We aren't suffering from overproduction at all. No, we're suffering from underproduction. And at the same time that we're suffering from underproduction, our industrial workers are suffering from a severe case of mere material possession. It's a hell of a mess. On the other hand, the only thing the Socialists have to worry about is that they don't know what they're doing. And there is the insignificant detail that they have a full sense of individual creativeness, sure—but at the same time, they don't have any freedom. So what can we learn? "Several Western democracies are trying some moderate socialistic experiments," which proves such experiments are probably all right, and "Soviet socialism has changed much, particularly in placing greater dependence upon the incentive of personal gain," so they've shown good will, and therefore you good Christians here should seek a new economic system, "an economic system which does not in fact impair the exercise of religious and intellectual freedom." Soviet agent Harry F. Ward was highly delighted. Apparently he felt that the statement would play an important part in the Marxist conspiracy to destroy America. Bishop Oxnam, vice president and member of the executive committee of Ward's Soviet-controlled Methodist Federation for Social Action, well may have rushed Ward a copy while the ink 87

was still wet, for the Red Dean immediately wrote as follows on the front page of the Methodist Federation's Social Questions Bulletin: 'War with Russia can be avoided, and it must be avoided, without compromise of basic convictions.' This is the challenge of the Federal Council of Churches to its constituents, to our government, and to all men of goodwill throughout the world, in its recent statement on American-Soviet relations. . . .63 The point being of course that Russia, as always, feared war, especially in 1946, because she was even more of a shambles than usual, and we were incomparably the strongest nation in the world. And furthermore, as we have seen, Socialist strategy says it is perfectly possible to win without formal warfare. As he had done in 1928, and again in 1939, Ward apparently inspired Oxnam. Five months later, on May 29, 1947, and writing as president, Division of Foreign Missions, on stationery of the Board of Missions and Church Extension of the Methodist Church, Bromley sent a letter to all the 22,000 Methodist ministers in the United States, which began as follows: The extraordinary statement issued by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America entitled 'SovietAmerican Relations' begins with the striking sentence, 'War with Russia can be avoided and must be avoided without compromise of basic convictions.' Furthermore, the rapid spread of Russian influence throughout the world is a most significant challenge to the World Mission of Christ.64 Observe the similarity between the two versions. Says Oxnam: As a Methodist minister you and your people are having
increasing influence in shaping public opinion in the nation. We are of the opinion that Jerome Davis's recent book entitled Behind Soviet Power makes a substantial contribution to understanding of Russia. It should be read in conjunction with other authoritative volumes, particularly in connection with the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ's statement referred to above, as well as with Vera Micheles Dean's discussion in the July-August 88

1946 Headline Series of the Foreign Policy Association, entitled 'Russia—Menace or Promise?'

The Davis book is important, Oxnam ends up, because it "will help you to understand" that we need "world order under the United Nations." Oxnam obligingly enclosed the Davis book and the FCC statement.65 Mrs. Dean was an old Socialist. Davis had been identified twice under oath as a member of the Communist Party. His file of Soviet activities took eight full pages to print. In fact, at the very same time, in an issue of Social Questions Bulletin which was perhaps being sent through the mail along with Oxnam's letter, Davis was defending the firing squads in Socialist Russia. Oxnam lost sympathy with Ward, he says, in 1928. Yet he had remained for many years an influential member of Ward's Communist MFSA. He even allowed himself to be elected vice president and member of the executive committee, along with Soviet agent McMichael, in 1944. You see, Bromley was "perturbed"—he says so—but was staying inside to "change" the organization. Poor Bromley was "perturbed" for nineteen years. He testifies that on June 9, 1947—eleven days, in fact, after he merrily mailed out 22,000 copies of that book by Soviet agent Jerome Davis—he "left" the Methodist Federation for Social Action,66 having effected no changes whatever, and with Soviet agent McMichael still in charge. But consider his letter of "resignation": I regret exceedingly that I must resign as a vice president of the Methodist Federation for Social Action. ... I do not care to have my name appear as one of the officers of the organization. . . . ... I ... therefore am resigning as an officer of the Federation.67 (Italics added)
In other words, he isn't resigning as a member at all. As he says himself, he is simply resigning as an officer. He just doesn't want his name to appear. Indeed, at the same MFSA convention in Kansas City six months later, at which the speakers included Soviet agents Harry F. Ward and Carl Marzani, and at which Davis again defended Soviet concentration camps—at this same convention, Oxnam was nominated to be one of forty members at large of the executive committee of the Methodist Federation, according to its own ballot.68 89

Oxnam testifies that "It is unnecessary to hand it to me, sir," because of course "There must be some error there," 69 but more than a year and a half later, he joined Socialist Ward in a vicious attack on the House Committee on Un-American Activities, by allowing the Social Questions Bulletin to print under his name—on its front page—the text of a speech he made in New Jersey on November 23, 1948.70 The speech was a response to a report issued the day before by the Committee, which described MFSA as a "tool of the Communist Party," which is "trying to use the prestige of the Methodist Church to promote the line of the Communist Party." 71 Oxnam did such a good job that the gang printed Ward's own denunciation far back on page 9.72 Now even twenty minutes ago you may have been convinced that there is something very strange about G. Bromley Oxnam. But Oxnam testifies under oath that he has always been "actively opposed to communism," and that he has "never been a member of the Communist Party," and it would be dangerous to forget that this isn't just another sleazy con man with his collar on backwards. We're dealing here with a bishop—and a bishop does not lie. Is there any way we can settle this thing for good?—a way the bishop himself would approve? Yes, there is. The bishop explained under oath that "My opposition to communism is a matter of public record in books, numerous articles, addresses, and sermons." He even was good enough to provide a bibliography. And he implied that if only the Committee would disregard the many Soviet organizations he accidentally happened to be running, and the many Soviet agents he accidentally happened to be helping —if only the Committee would consult what he himself had said, as a matter of public record, there they would find his true attitude to Communism. Let's be careful. This is a bishop. Let's do exactly as he says. He starts out, in 1927, with a little "objectivity." America, he says, must take steps "to effectively bar Communism from this land." The steps include the substitution of "a motive of service" for "the dominant acquisitive motive." 73 He quotes Harry F. Ward 74 and Scott Nearing 75 with approval. Nearing of course was also a Soviet agent.76 Then he really lets us have it: . . . An appraisal, if it be fair, must recognize that the Bolshevist leader, contrary to American portrayal, is 90

usually a man of deep devotion, sacrificing spirit, cool courage, and thoroughly sincere in his attempt to bring to society an order that shall result in the enrichment of personality. He has proved his devotion by long years of suffering and imprisonment. His sincerity must be recognized even though the appraiser rejects his program and abhors his method.77

What it all adds up to is that:
. . . A great people, led by men of conviction, are embarked upon an experiment of colossal magnitude. They seek to establish a new society wherein exploitation of man by man shall be no more, wherein there shall be no controlling classes, and wherein the universal obligation to work is recognized. It is fair to say that Soviet Russia has as the object of its collective endeavor the creation of a new order wherein all men, rendering service to the state, shall have a full and complete life. The objective is abundant living.78

Oxnam is really serious about this last paragraph. The italics are his. It is interesting to observe that in ancient Egypt, too—or in any dictatorship, for that matter—there was also an "obligation to work" and men rendered "service to the state." They built a lot of pyramids. Like Bennett and Niebuhr, Oxnam is an "anti-Communist" —of a rather unusual sort:
. . . Communism as a program may quicken our attention when we note the plan of unified action, with waste eliminated: a state purposefully directing the work life of the entire nation toward a definite goal. But when one begins to analyze the economics of Communism; runs into the dangers of bureaucracy; and notes that the Communist himself has been forced to return to capitalistic methods of production, even under workers' control; he seriously questions whether the program is calculated to successfully attain the goal. . . .79
So his objection isn't that the Communists are Communists. Not at all. It's that they aren't Communist enough! All of this, too, is in italics. Furthermore:

Has Russia any lessons for America? First of all I believe that Russia teaches that force repression, as used by the 91

Czarist autocracy, results in force reaction as revealed in the Bolshevik Revolution. I believe that force dictatorship, if rigorously maintained, will face the same violent overthrow. America will do well to recognize that the evils of our own order must be removed, and that without such removal force maintenance of the status quo will develop a counter movement of dangerous proportions. . . .80

Observe. He equates the oppression committed under the Czar, with modern conditions in the United States. He implies that America is a dictatorship. And he implies that the only way to prevent a Bolshevik "revolution" in America is to socialize it:

Of course in the Communist program there are items worthy of careful consideration. I refer to the attempt to budget the needs of the nation to eliminate waste, to purposefully direct industry and agriculture as a unit to meet the needs listed in the budget. [And there is] the wisdom of collectively handling certain of our basic problems, such as the railways, coal, and water power. . . .81
"Is it possible to carry this principle into the productive process," Oxnam asks in 1941, "shifting its objective from profit-making to the production of that which is necessary, useful, or beautiful? Will men work for other rewards than profit? . . ." 82 And in 1945, he's still at it:
. . . Anyone who has seen the workers of Russia constructing the subways of Moscow beholds this new spirit. . . . The subway workers I referred to were proud; theirs was the pride to be noted when men receive an honorary degree from a university or a medal for military service. They were essential to the community, and their service gave them prestige.83 Indeed, "all labor shall be for social ends, with production planned for consumption and directed by brains dedicated to the common good." 84 Bromley undoubtedly was one of the brains he meant. He continues.

The capitalist system is then indicated. The counts in the indictment are the poverty of the poor, the inequality of incomes, the disparity in personal freedom, and the unscientific method of organizing production and distribution of commodities and services which is declared to be inconsis92

tent with the spiritual advance of the race, since the motive of pecuniary gain to individual owners is inimical to national morality and international peace, in fact, to civilization itself.85 This isn't working out so well, is it? In fact, it's rather embarrassing. We wish there were something we could do about it. But as you will remember, we are simply following the bishop's instructions. Says the bishop:

The workers of Russia speak. They say that the American demand for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can never be realized until it is complemented by the universal obligation to work in a society in which the means of production are owned by the people and the fruits of production go to the people. Workers can never be happy when exploited, and they are exploited unless they receive the full product of their toil, either directly or in social benefits that are theirs indirectly. No worker in Russia may live off the labor of another worker. Those who must be cared for because unable to work are made secure by the group. The Russian worker speaks: In my land production is planned for consumption. Unplanned production for profit has given way to planned production for persons. What the community produces is shared among those who co-operate to produce it, and we ourselves decide how the common wealth shall be used to enrich the commonwealth. We pay no tribute to anyone who owns but does not work. No parasite lives upon our labor. . . .86 Oxnam ends up with the suggestion that the Methodist Church "think in terms of sending fifty of its finest youths each year into the work life of the nation." . . . The plan would involve rigorous training in some great university center in which they might be prepared to become leaders of labor, but qualified likewise to become efficient operatives in mines, in mills, in factories, on railroads. ... At first, this will be leadership upon the local level, subsequently upon the state level, and, finally, in the national and international realm. If fifty such persons go into the labor movement each year for twenty years, out of this thousand will come a leadership of great power. . . .87 Rather curious "religious" activity, isn't it: a network of "operatives," all trying to substitute for the right of a free American worker to quit his job and apply for another, the 93

glorious "obligation to work" of the Soviet Union. Trying to substitute, in fact, the same serfdom which existed in Czarist Russia until 1861. Indeed, he's still at it in 1954: . . . There is a universal obligation to work; but it is not enough for a Christian to work—he should be engaged in socially useful work; his labor should meet a need. It should contribute to the common good; it should add to the common wealth. . . .88
All of which demonstrates a very simple fact: a con man with his collar on backwards ain't necessarily a clergyman. Thus ends our tour of the ecclesiastical underworld! And you may have been furious for the past hour that we had to go through it. Because this book, of course, is about John Foster Dulles. Sure, you may be saying, we've just been through a horrifying experience. But this is exactly what proves that John Foster Dulles had nothing to do with it. Why, Dulles was a Republican—a conservative Republican. Sure, maybe he did help found the Council on Foreign Relations, but everybody makes mistakes—and Dulles talked of "massive retaliation" and going "to the brink." Why, he was so opposed to Communism, he almost got us into war. So, I want my money back, you may be saying. We're in the wrong book. John Foster Dulles had nothing to do with all this. It just isn't possible. It isn't. Isn't it?

1. Federal Council of Churches, Biennial Report, 1938, p. 30. 2. Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1932), p. 90. 3. Ibid., pp. 167, 179. 4. Reinhold Niebuhr, Reflections On the End of an Era (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1934), p. 16. 5. Ibid., p. 78. 6. Ibid., p. 99. 7. Ibid., pp. 238-39. 8. Reinhold Niebuhr, An Interpretation of Christian Ethics (New York, Harper & Bros., 1935), p. 17. 9. Reinhold Niebuhr, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1944), pp. 98-99. 94

10. Reinhold Niebuhr, Faith and History (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1949), p. 212. 11. Reinhold Niebuhr, The Irony of American History (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952), p. 101. 12. Reinhold Niebuhr, Love and Justice. (Philadelphia. The Westminster Press, 1957), pp. 257-58. This originally appeared in the Christian Century, January 3, 1934. 13. Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Reps., Investigation of Un-American Propaganda Activities in the United States, 75th Cong., third sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1938), Vol 1, pp. 920-21. 14. John C. Bennett, Social Salvation, A Religious Approach to the Problems of Social Change (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1935). 15. Ibid., p. 28. 16. Ibid., p. 165. 17. John C. Bennett, Christianity and Our World (New York, Association Press, 1936), pp. 35-36, 40. 18. John C. Bennett, "The Contribution of Reinhold Niebuhr," Religion in Life, Vol. 6, No. 2, Spring, 1937, p. 308. 19. John C. Bennett, Christian Ethics and Social Policy (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1946), p. 51. 20. John C. Bennett, Christianity and Communism (New York, Association Press, 1948), p. 20. 21. Ibid., p. 25. 22. Ibid., p. 28. 23. Ibid., p. 43.

24. Ibid., p. 68.
25. In Theology Today, October, 1950. Quoted in Edgar C. Bundy, Collectivism in the Churches (Wheaton, Illinois, The Church League of America, 1958), pp. 187-88. 26. John C. Bennett, "Can We Ever Support Communism?" the Christian Century, June 11, 1952. Quoted by Bundy, op. cit., pp. 214-15. 27. John C. Bennett, Howard R. Bowen, William Adams Brown, Jr., G. Bromley Oxnam, Christian Values and Economic Life (New York, Harper & Bros., 1954), p. 213. 28. Ibid., p. 222. 29. John C. Bennett, When Christians Make Political Decisions (New York, Association Press, 1964), p. 66. 30. The I.W.W. was a Socialist group advocating violent methods, one of whose graduates was Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, later head of the Communist Party, U.S.A. Los Angeles Times, May 19, 1923. Quoted in Committee on UnAmerican Activities, House of Reps., Testimony of Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, 83rd Cong., first sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1954), p. 3712. 31. New York Times, October 7, 1948, p. 8. 32. Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3652. 95

33. Ibid., p. 3629. 34. Ibid., p. 3650. 35. J. B. Matthews, "The Years of Betrayal," American Mercury, February, 1954, pp. 34-45. 36. Oxnam, op. cit., pp. 3630-31. 37. Ibid., p. 3693. 38. This was the conclusion of the Committee, in Special Committee on Un-American Activities, Report No. 1311, March 29, 1944, p. 97. For instance: "The files of the Special Committee on Un-American Activities show that the Communist Party urged the formation of Bridges defense committees as a part of its official activities, that party members were selected to form such committees, that Bridges defense stamps were sold in the party units, that party members were assessed $1 toward the Bridges defense fund, and that Bridges defense pamphlets were sold at Communist bookshops." Quoted in Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3693. 39. Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3598. 40. Ibid., p. 3599. 41. And by Attorney General Tom Clark in 1947 and 1948; and the California Committee on Un-American Activities in 1948. See Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3601. 42. Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3601. 43. Ibid., p. 3602. 44. Ibid., p. 3645. 45. Special Committee on Un-American Activities, report of March 29, 1944; and in a report of June 25, 1942. And by the Congressional Committee on Un-American Activities, House Report 1953; by the California Committee in 1948; and the Massachusetts House Committee on Un-American Activities in its 1938 report. See Oxnam, op. cit., pp. 3645-46. 46. Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3619. 47. Ibid., p. 3620. 48. Ibid., p. 3621. 49. Ibid., p. 3794. 50. Ibid., p. 3796. 51. Ibid., p. 3798. 52. Carl McIntire, Modern Tower of Babel (Collingswood, New Jersey, Christian Beacon Press, 1949), p. 154. 53. Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3790. 54. Loc. cit. 55. Ibid., p. 3744. 56. Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Reps., Investigation of Communist Activities in the New York City Area, testimony of Benjamin Gitlow, 83rd Cong., first sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1953), part 6, p. 2136. 57. Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3725. 58. Ibid., p. 3756. 59. Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Reps., 96

Review of the Methodist Federation for Social Action, Formerly the Methodist Federation for Social Service, House Report No. 1661, 82nd Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1952), p. 6. See also Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3727. 60. Oxnam, op. cit., pp. 3728-29. 61. Ibid., p. 3769. 62. Federal Council of Churches, Biennial Report, 1946, p. 240ff. 63. Harry F. Ward, "Plan for Peace with Russia," Social Questions Bulletin, Vol. 36, No. 9, December, 1946, p. 1. 64. Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3774. 65. Ibid., p. 3770. 66. Ibid., p. 3738. 67. Ibid., p. 3765. 68. Review of the Methodist Federation for Social Action, op. cit., p. 82. 69. Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3741. 70. G. Bromley Oxnam, "The Faith of Free Men," Social Questions Bulletin, Vol. 39, No. 1, January, 1949, p. 1. 71. Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Reps., One Hundred Things You Should Know About Communism Series (100 things ... and Religion), (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., second printing, August 15, 1949), p. 49. 72. Harry F. Ward, "The Un-American Committee on Communism and Religion," Social Question Bulletin. 73. G. Bromley Oxnam, Russian Impressions (Los Angeles, privately published, 1927), p. 82. 74. Ibid., p. 32.

75. Ibid., p. 86.
76. Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Reps., Investigation of Un-American Propaganda Activities in the United States, 75th Cong., third sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1938), Vol. 3, p. 2182. 77. Oxnam, Russian Impressions, op. cit., p. 84. 78. Ibid., p. 86. 79. Ibid., p. 88. 80. Ibid., pp. 92-93. 81. Ibid., pp. 93-94. 82. G. Bromley Oxnam, The Ethical Ideals of Jesus in a Changing World (New York, Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1941), p. 34. 83. G. Bromley Oxnam, Labor and Tomorrow's World (New

York, Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1945), pp. 32-33. 84. Ibid., p. 33. 85. Ibid., p. 102. 86. Ibid., p. 130. 87. Ibid., pp. 149-50. 88. Bennett, Bowen, Brown, Oxnam, op. cit., p. 34. 97

His political thinking could no more be separated from his religion than a lighted bulb from its electric current. . . . There is simply no understanding Dulles without understanding the depth of his religious adherence. ... 1
Roscoe Drummond Gaston Coblentz

THE RELIGIOUS dedication of John Foster Dulles is a matter of legend. His father was Rev. Dr. Alien Macy Dulles, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Watertown, New York. His mother long hoped John Foster would become a minister. There was much singing of psalms in the Dulles household and Foster, according to the legend, was the most vocal of the lot. For some years thereafter he avoided religion, preferring instead to help Colonel House arrange One Marxist World, but apparently at some point in the thirties, he again came to the conclusion that what the World needed indeed was some more Religion. He began to publish some distinguished thinking in religious magazines like Religion in Life:

Where then does the solution lie? A theoretical solution lies in the abolition of the entire concept of national sovereignty and the unification of the world into a single nation. All boundary barriers are thus automatically leveled. . . .2 What this has to do with religion is difficult to see, but observe in any event that Dulles specifically recommends the abolition of independent nations, which of course would include the United States. How are we to overcome the obstacles created by pride and selfishness? . . . We can get rid of them only by replacing them by some sentiment more dominant and gripping and which will contain in it the elements of universality as against particularity. This is no visionary dream. Before us today we have the 98

spectacle of Communism and Fascism changing almost overnight the characteristics of entire peoples. Millions of individuals have been made into different and, on the whole, finer people. Elemental virtues are again treated as matters of concern. Immoralities and dishonestness, personal prides and prejudices are replaced by courage, self-sacrifice and discipline. There is a conscious subordination of self to the end that some great objective may be furthered.3 Yes, dear reader, it's fantastic, it's incredible, it couldn't possibly be, and of course we all wish it weren't—but there it is before us on the page: John Foster Dulles believes that Communism and Fascism are inspiring spectacles from which we should learn. Millions of individuals, you see, have been made into different and, on the whole, finer people. This of course was half true; millions of Russian individuals had by then, spring of 1937, been made by Stalin into dead people. Hitler was beginning to remake the Jews in Germany. And Mussolini was doing the job for the people of Ethiopia. On second thought—once the shock wears off—we shouldn't have been surprised at all. In fact, an enthusiasm for various forms of Socialism is just what we should have expected from a founder of the Marxian Socialist Council on Foreign Relations. The reader may wonder: couldn't it be that Dulles was just misinformed, or uninformed? Or perhaps that this was just a simple piece of juvenile delinquency? That Dulles would grow out of it? That he just wasn't old enough to know what he was doing? Not only is it possible—but that's the explanation we should accept. At the time, he was, after all, only forty-nine years old. And now he decided that he wanted to do more than just write articles. He began to look for like-minded churchgoers to work with. There were all sorts of genuine believers. For those interested in Protestantism, there were genuine Christians of every denomination, eager to work with anyone to advance their belief. There were 30 to 40 million genuine Roman Catholics. There were a million or so genuine Mormons. There were a few million real Jews. If Dulles had been interested in pursuing the writings of Mohammed, he could even have gotten together a large enough bunch of genuine Moslems. Dulles threw in with a crowd calling themselves the Federal Council of Churches. 99

You will remember that our detailed analysis of FCC—in which we primarily used statements by the councillors them selves—unavoidably leads to the conclusion that unknown to most of the millions who support it every Sunday at the col lection plate, and the thousands who support it every Sunday in the pulpit, the Federal Council of Churches, now known as the National Council of Churches, is a semi-secret, monolithic, political organization, controlled by a small band of sleazy con men with their collars on backwards, who are actively trying to destroy the United States and replace it with the Soviet form of totalitarian dictatorship. You will remember also, that though unknown to most this simple fact had already been publicized to a certain extent for years, and was readily accessible to anyone willing to look. In the summer of 1937, soon after publicizing the wonders of Fascism and Communism, Dulles travelled to England, to the quaint, university town of Oxford, in fact, where he attended the Oxford Conference on Church and State. You will remember that one of those who took a prominent part in the conference was Federal Councilman John A. Mackay, who headed a section, was a prominent Marxist agent, was a good friend of Josef Hromadka, another Marxist agent, and would later become an enthusiastic apologist for Socialist China And that another was Councilman John C. Bennett, who helped prepare the conference, who was secretary of the section that condemned the profit motive and called for increase ing social control and heavier taxes—and who believes that there is "much truth" in Communism, that its firing squad and labor camps should be excused, and that it would be perfectly okay to engineer the violent seizure of the Unite States Government. Charles W. Kurd, who was there, reports in The New York Times that on July 14, the delegates heard a speech by Man ist agent Reinhold Niebuhr, who is very worried about a "excess" of individual freedom, who advocates a return to the primitive jungle—and who therefore would approve the violent seizure of the United States Government. Another treat for the delegates on that great day, says Hurd, was a speech by a gentleman named John Foster Dallas (sic): ". . . At this session Mr. Dallas criticized the time honored belief that churches should ally themselves always with the forces of law and order." 4 We wish Mr. Hurd hadn't phrased himself quite this way. This would seem to indicate that Dulles recommended the 100

churches sometimes ally themselves with the forces of crime and disorder, or at least take a bipartisan approach. After all, there are two sides to every question. And a few days later, we read in the Times that among those who served on a special committee at Oxford with Marxist agent John Mackay was New York attorney Henry A. Dallas.5 Two years later, on October 28, 1939, Dulles spoke to the National Council of Young Men's Christian Associations in Detroit, and recommended "some dilution of sovereignty, to the immediate disadvantage of those nations which now possess the preponderance of power," which would mean for instance: . . . the establishment of a common money might be vested in a body created by and responsible to the principal trading and investing peoples. This would deprive our government of exclusive control over a national money. . . .6

Yes, you read it right. And in the same year, we learn that he is a member, as chance would have it, of the Department of International Justice and Goodwill of the Federal Council of Churches.7 You will remember that in the next year, on October 4, 1940, a dozen of the boys met in New York—including Marxist agent Henry A. Atkinson—and issued a statement called "The American Churches and the International Situation," which FCC officially adopted at its biennial meeting in December. You will remember that in that statement, the Council derided our traditional love of genuine peace, insinuated that what is going on now in the United States is "exploitation," the same thing that happened in Czarist Russia, and implied that among them are several who encourage the use of force —the violent seizure of the government—and that this represents an acceptable opinion. The committee of twelve which drafted this official pronouncement, dear reader, which included Marxist agent Atkinson, was headed by a gentleman named John Foster Dulles.8 Indeed, Dulles himself wrote the statement. Now, this of course is incredible, fantastic, it just couldn't possibly be—but as you will see before you in the pamphlet, it is. Two months later, at the same biennial meeting at which the Dulles pronouncement approving violent revolution was 101

officially adopted, the councilmen decided to establish the Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and Durable Peace. You will remember that at the executive committee meeting of January 17, 1941, Marxist agent Henry A. Atkinson, Marxist agent Bromley Oxnam and Marxist agent John C. Bennett were assigned to help run the Commission as members of its Committee of Direction, and that Marxist agent Reinhold Niebuhr was a Commission member "for years." The chairman of the Commission of course was Mr. John Foster Dulles.9 On September 18, 1941, Chairman Dulles reported to his Marxist colleagues: "By way of elaborating his own position, Mr. Dulles reiterated his conviction that the United States should take immediate steps leading toward an abridgment of its own sovereignty. . . ." 10 (Italics added) The point was, once again to repeat, that the Marxist plan, elaborated by Marxist agents like Joe Stalin, was to destroy the United States by abridging its sovereignty and dissolving it in one global Socialist state. Nothing much happened in the rest of the year, while Roosevelt and George Marshall were arranging to have our fleet destroyed by the Japanese, but then in March of 1942, as you will recall, the gang got together again in Ohio. That was the conference at which the announcement was made that collectivism was coming whether we like it or not; that we might as well experiment with government ownership; that we all have an obligation to work in some socially necessary service; that we must give up our armed forces and accept instead an international police which will regulate international trade and population movements. The co-chairman of the conference was John Foster Dulles.11 Dulles made a speech in which he called for "a system of government which can exercise jurisdiction which is worldwide," 12 would have its own legislature, executive and judiciary, could completely control world trade, and to which Dulles would hand "much of the present stocks of gold and silver." 13 Indeed, he says:

The significance of what I initially propose should, however, not be under-estimated. It involves an organization dedicated to the general welfare—the peace and order of mankind—and the assuming of an allegiance to this goal superior to that of any national allegiance. . . .14 102

One would never dream of underestimating anything Dulles had to propose. Indeed, in December 1942, in a statement adopted by the Federal Council of Churches, Dulles tells us: . . . Nations are not economically self-sufficient, and the natural wealth of the world is not evenly distributed. Accordingly, the possession of such natural resources should not be looked upon as an opportunity to promote national advantage or to enhance the prosperity of some at the expense of others. Rather, such possession is a trust to be discharged in the general interest. . . . The solution of this problem, doubtless involving some international organization, must be accepted as a responsibility by those who possess natural resources needed by others.15 You will remember that Stalin said that a coordinated world economy—in which the advanced countries "render aid, real and prolonged aid" to the backward countries—was absolutely essential to the success of world Socialism. And Dulles says,

We believe that military establishments should be internationally controlled and be made subject to law under the community of nations. . . . Any initial arrangement which falls short of this must ... be looked upon as temporary and provisional.16

But there is more. It is 1943. Dulles is now naturally a member of the executive committee of the Federal Council of Churches,17 the seventy men who actually run that Marxist organization. Around the world Americans are dying, to defend the American way of life—or so they have been told. And in July of that year, Dulles is in Princeton, New Jersey, to attend the International Round Table of Christian Leaders, along with chairman G. Bromley Oxnam, a Marxist agent. You will remember that the Round Table issued "A Christian Message on World Order," in which they called upon us to achieve the "beneficent social ends" of the Russian "revolution." On page v of the Message, we learn that "some of the final drafting" was done by a committee, the chairman of which
was John Foster Dulles. We really do wish there were some other way to make this

more believable, but as you see, we have simply recorded the bald facts. Now it is 1944. You will remember that the Commisssion 103

on a Just and Durable Peace, of which Dulles is chairman, is recommending the work of various Marxist agents, in its publication, Post War World. Then there was the trip to the White House by Marxist agent Bromley Oxnam and three others. One of the others was John Foster Dulles.18 And in January 1945, he presided over the Commission's second National Study Conference in Cleveland, Ohio, and was a member of the committee chaired by G. Bromley Oxnam,19 which called for "a larger measure of social planning and control." He was, of course, still a member of the executive committee of the Federal Council of Churches.20 Nineteen forty-six was a busy year. In March, Dulles presented FCC with a report called "The Churches and the World Order," in which he explained as usual that: " . . . A coordinated world economy is needed to overcome the economic causes of conflict and to meet the Christian responsibility for mutual helpfulness. . . ."In fact, "we call upon our government to accept as law of the land such international laws as are adopted by the United Nations." And there is an interesting twist: We further urge our government to accept compulsory jurisdiction in the International Court of Justice 'in all legal disputes concerning the interpretation of a treaty; any question of international law; the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation; and the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation. . . .' 21

So Dulles not only wants us to accept United Nations laws —which would mean, since we would have no national army to oppose their international police, that the UN could invade us in the event of "lawbreaking"—he also wants us to pay reparations. You will remember that in August 1946, at a conference in Cambridge, England, the gang formed an outfit called the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs; that among the members were Marxist agents Niebuhr and Oxnam; and that CCIA became an agency of the International Missionary Council headed by Marxist agent John A. Mackay. The chairman of the founding Cambridge Conference was: Mr. John Foster Dulles.22 104

Indeed, Dulles, as vice president of the new outfit, was in effect the president, since none was chosen.23 But there is more. You will remember that in 1946, the Marxist-controlled Federal Council of Churches, headed by Marxist agent Bromley Oxnam, issued a Statement on Soviet-American Relations, and that Oxnam was chairman of the committee that did the drafting. The Statement recommended "communism as an economic program for social reconstruction," because of its "concern for the underprivileged"; implied that Soviet Russia isn't a dictatorship at all and therefore that our opposition to it is wrong; urged us not to get any new military bases close to it; and recommended that we "learn from the experience" of state Socialism. Soviet agent Harry F. Ward —who exchanged lessons in religious infiltration with Marxist agent Joe Stalin—was so delighted, was so convinced that the Statement would play an important part in the Marxist conspiracy to destroy America, that he immediately printed and publicized his boundless appreciation on the front page of the Methodist Federation for Social Action's Social Questions Bulletin—very possibly with the assistance, could it not be, of vice president and member of the executive committee G. Bromley Oxnam. You will remember in fact that only five months later, in May 1947, agent Oxnam mailed a copy of the Statement to all the 22,000 Methodist Ministers then in the United States, along with a copy of Behind Soviet Power by Jerome Davis—a Soviet agent who openly defends the concentration camps and firing squads in Socialist Russia. The author of this invaluable tool in the Soviet arsenal was of course Mr. John Foster Dulles. Indeed, says Oxnam: ". . . We went over it sentence by sentence. . . ." 24 It's fantastic, of course, it's incredible, it just isn't possible —but as we see, it's exactly what happened. Please look in the footnotes. But there is more still. On July 1, 1947, Dulles presented to the executive committee of FCC a statement called "Crossroads of American Foreign Policy":

We believe that one cause of this increased tension, and a cause which it lies within our power to control, is failure to demonstrate that the American people stand for a basic moral and political principle and not merely for self-interest. . . .25


We had just finished giving the Russians eleven or so billion dollars in lend-lease, which enabled Stalin to keep his seat. The Russians never sent a penny of it back. But Dulles believes we're still guilty of too much self-interest. As a graduate of George Washington Law School, he probably had heard of George Washington—possibly even of Patrick Henry and James Madison—but he believes that the American people nevertheless do not demonstrate a basic moral and political principle. You will remember the meeting in Philadelphia, in January 1948, held by FCC's Department of International Justice and Goodwill, at which material on the United Nations was prepared under the Supervision of Alger Hiss. The Department's section on the UN was headed of course by John Foster Dulles.26 And still there is more. There is the World Council of Churches. The gang got together again in Amsterdam, in Holland, in August 1948, and named agent Oxnam one of six presidents. Another was T.C. Chao, who urges Christians to "belittle America, curse America, and oppose America," and whose "religious" activities include helping Mao Tse-tung force Roman Catholic nuns to marry. Marxist agent Josef L. Hromadka, from Czechoslovakia, friend of Marxist agent John A. Mackay, was made a member of the Central Committee, of course, and naturally defended the Soviet system (where he saw an "amazing" amount of "genuine cultural freedom"). And Marxist agent Reinhold Niebuhr was there, as was Marxist agent John C. Bennett, who wrote that the Christian churches should reject Capitalism—advice which was used by Communist official Edward Strong as Communist propaganda. And John Foster Dulles was there! Dulles, as always, was highly influential. And he presented a report on "The Christian Citizen in a Changing World": . . . The so-called western or Christian civilization has long accepted most of the social ends now professed by the Soviet Communist party and, indeed, its goals have been even more advanced. But of recent years, it has seemed to be half-hearted and lacking in fervor or sense of urgency. . . .27 We're even more Communist than they are! Whoopee! But lately our people have become reluctant to go all the way. That's no good. 106

First, Christians must reject, and see to it that their nations reject, the Soviet thesis of the inevitability of violent conflict and they must not imitate Soviet leadership by placing reliance on violent means. Second, Christians must see to it that their nations demonstrate that peaceful methods can realize the goals which we all espouse. You will recall that our analysis of Soviet theory showed that military means are used when necessary, but that the goal is to win, and that if victory is easier without military means, they will do without them. ... In the United States, great emphasis is being placed upon achieving military supremacy, and military counsels are more influential than has normally been the case in this republic. Some portions of the American press are stirring up emotional hatred against the Soviet Union and there is some distortion of truth, principally through the exaggeration of what is true but of minor importance. We're trying to achieve military supremacy in the face of the Marxist military threat, and that's no good, says Dulles. Furthermore, some papers are stirring up emotional hatred against the Soviet Union, and this is a distortion. Sure, the reason for the hatred is true—the Marxists, after all, are trying to destroy America and conquer the world—but this is of minor importance.

The most important response to the Soviet challenge will be in effecting peacefully the reforms which Soviet leaders contend can only be effected by violent means. . . . What the Soviet leaders are plotting is to impose Communism on the United States. We'll fox them. We'll impose Communism on the United States. That will checkmate the Soviet leaders.
You will remember the warning of the American Bar Association that 'we cannot assume that those who "reject the violent path" are necessarily any less dangerous to us in the long run. . . .'

Indeed, says Dulles:
The 'free societies' have also made considerable progress in achieving an economy whereby production is on the basis of ability and distribution on the basis of need. The steeply graduated income and estate taxes which now prevail gen107

erally in 'capitalist' countries take largely from those who have ability to accumulate and to an increasing extent this is being distributed to those in need in the form of social security programs. These countries are in fact much closer to the so-called 'higher phase' of communism than is the Soviet Union itself. As one might expect, Dulles was perfectly at ease in Amsterdam, among a teeming school of Soviet agents. J. Henry Carpenter reports that "On his return from Amsterdam, John Foster Dulles declared that he had obtained 'a good deal of spiritual lift' from the World Council Assembly. . . ." 28 And ten years later in a speech to the Military Chaplains Association: . . . 'Communism' is not actually practiced within the Soviet Union and the challenge we face does not come from those who follow the lofty maxim 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' When the Soviet Constitution was last amended, there was a discussion on whether to introduce that maxim into the Constitution. That proposal was rejected on the ground that Soviet society was not yet ready for that high standard, and I fear indeed that it is not.29 So what Dulles, like Oxnam, is complaining about isn't that Russia is Communist. Not at all. It isn't Communist enough. Our enemy isn't at all the man who steals a citizen's abilities and decides what that citizen needs. No, he's all right. He's lofty. Once again, it's incredible, it's fantastic, nobody wants to believe it. But as we see, there just isn't any other way to read it—that's exactly what Dulles says. So, incredible though it is, John Foster Dulles—according to the testimony of his own actions—was for years one of the leaders of the Soviet conspiracy to use religion to destroy America. Marxist agent John Mackay says the Commission on a Just and Durable Peace "has been more influential in shaping Christian public opinion in influencing the international policy of the government, than any single group in recent times that has faced the problems of peace and world order." 30 And an anonymous member of the Commission says that Dulles, "more than any other person, was responsible for shaping the mind of the Protestant churches respecting the post-war world." 31 108

Which brings us to a highly interesting development in the matter of Dulles's reputation. In May 1947, in the Methodist Federation for Social Action's Social Questions Bulletin, we learn that Rev. William Howard Melish—chairman of the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, whose Soviet activities are approved by Dwight Eisenhower—has charged Dulles with advocating war against Russia. A Council statement says that "To quiet any misgivings on the part of other nations as to the practicability of such a plan, Mr. Dulles, as did Hitler before him, is stressing the weakness of the Soviet Union and her inability to counteract such a bloc directed against her." Melish charges that Dulles's "whole philosophy is based on the irreconcilability of our own and the Soviet system, and the inevitability of conflict." 82 In August 1948, in the Christian Century, we read of the doings at the Soviet-run Progressive Party Convention, which nominated Henry Wallace for president:

. . . Marquis Childs . . . spoke of the way in which Mr. Dulles was excoriated as responsible for the 'get tough' policy with Russia and how, at every mention of his name, 'the response was as automatic as the response of a doorbell when you press the button. Boo! Hiss!' . . .33 And in December, Harry F. Ward, the American Red Dean himself, explains as follows: ". . . The policy for which Dulles has now become the spokesman therefore rerequires a war of extermination. Is this what the American people want?" 34 This series of attacks was of course a complete fraud. Where is the proof? As we have seen, Dulles's true views, amply expressed over many years, by Dulles himself, were well known. He was deeply involved with many Marxist agents—at least a few of whom actively encouraged the violent seizure of the United States Government. He played a leading part in Soviet propaganda, publicly admired Soviet Communism, attacked well founded criticisms of the Soviet "government," and urged us to install Communism in America. He wanted to dissolve the United States in a World Socialist Government—that is, destroy it. Indeed, he wanted us to pay allegiance to the World Organization and hand it our stocks of gold and silver. In fact, he urged us to accept United Nations jurisdiction over our affairs, pay reparations if the World Court so decided, 109

disband our armed forces in favor of an international police, and not attempt to defend ourselves against the Soviet threat. All this, as we have just seen, is a simple matter of public record. Henry Wallace and his Soviet-controlled Progressive Party certainly knew it. Wallace and Dulles had served together, apparently with great success, on a Marxist committee at the Marxist Council on Foreign Relations. Indeed, a comic element is introduced into the affair, by the fact that the Progressive Party's terrible accusation that Dulles is responsible for the "get tough" policy with Russia, is reported in the very same issue of the Christian Century in which is printed an article by Dulles called "Peace with Russia," an excerpt from his report to the recently concluded World Council of Churches—in which, as we have seen, he applauded the "social ends now professed by the Soviet Communist Party" and advised us to adopt them ourselves; and denounced "emotional hatred against the Soviet Union" and our attempt to achieve military supremacy, because of course we must not place reliance "on violent means." William Howard Melish certainly knew it. He and Oxnam were commissars together at the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship. Indeed, in another of those bits of slapstick the comrades love to pull, it develops that Oxnam's Soviet-controlled Social Questions Bulletin printed Melish's charge that Dulles is advocating war against Russia, and believes in the "irreconcilability of our own and the Soviet system," in the very same month in which Oxnam was mailing to all 22,000 Methodist ministers in the United States, a copy of Dulles's Statement on Soviet-American Relations, which began, as Oxnam indicated in his accompanying letter as follows: "War with Russia can be avoided and must be avoided without compromise of basic convictions." The statement went on to recommend "communism as an economic program for social reconstruction" and urge that we not get any new military bases close to Russia. And Oxnam has testified that Dulles's authorship of that Marxist document "is no secret." 35 Which would also mean that Harry F. Ward, American Red Dean of Soviet religious activities in the United States, unquestionably knew it in December 1946, when he praised it on the front page of the Social Questions Bulletin as a "Plan for Peace with Russia"; and knew it again in December 1948, when he accused Dulles of advocating a "war of 110

extermination" only four months after his performance at the World Council of Churches. The fact is, then, that the Communists knew what Dulles really believed; knew he not only didn't advocate a "war of extermination" but wanted to disband our armed forces; knew that he had written much valuable Soviet propaganda, applauded Soviet Communism and recommended we install it —and yet they publicly denounced him!

Now why would they do a thing like that? Former Communist official, Manning Johnson testified: It has always been a policy to have and to use persons who
are not members of the Communist Party to head such or-

ganizations. That gives the organization a cloak of respectability so that the leader can say to John Doe and to Mary
Doe, 'I am not a Communist, but I subscribe to this pro-

gram. I subscribe to this policy,' and in that way it gives weight and respectability to it.36 Could it possibly be that the whole point to this completely phony Soviet campaign was simply to protect Dulles's reputation? Could it possibly be in fact that the point was to create a
new reputation!

During World War II, it was comparatively easy to be a
Communist. Soviet Russia was our "ally"—Stalin said so.

Earl Browder, head of the Communist Party, U.S.A., was a frequent and delightful guest of the Roosevelts in your White House—where he gratefully made use of the presidential telephones. In this atmosphere, Dulles's Soviet activities would not stand out. But now it was 1947 and 1948. The honeymoon was over. Now it was apparent to the American people that the criminals who had grabbed the government of Russia were dangerous enemies of the United States. Now Americans would no longer accept as a leader a man who taught that we must "learn from the experience" of state Socialism. They certainly would hesitate to accept Thomas E. Dewey as a Republican candidate in 1948, with the certain knowledge that such a man would be appointed Secretary of State.
So the Communists went to work to manufacture a reputation; to engineer the idea, with such intensity and repetition

that people firmly came to believe the idea their own, that
Dulles was responsible for our "getting tough" with Russia —that he was an "anti-Communist"—which of course would

make it easier for him to continue the policy he had advo111

cated all along: slipping Communism over on the American people. Where's the proof of all that? Let us return to the famous Oxnam "resignation" from the Methodist Federation for Social Action. On June 9, 1947, Oxnam sent a letter to that Soviet organization which he later claimed had proved he had "resigned," but which on reading showed he had simply resigned as one of the officers. Indeed, you will recall that he resigned as an officer simply because he didn't want his name to appear. And he didn't want his name to appear, he says in his letter, because of "the recent attacks upon Mr. John Foster Dulles" 37 and a couple of others, who he says in his testimony are his "personal friends." 38 So the most logical conclusion is that Oxnam didn't want his name to appear simply to protect the new reputation of his "personal friend" John Foster Dulles. It wouldn't do at all for "conservative Republican antiCommunist" John Foster Dulles to have for a "personal friend" a man who is vice president and member of the executive committee of a Soviet organization, and a close associate of Harry F. Ward's—and the letter of "resignation" was the best way to maintain the association. The point is that Oxnam was, as we see, one of Dulles's firm links with the Soviet underworld, in a relationship that extended—as in the link between the Emperor Caligula and the lowest Roman of them all—from the social stratosphere of the crowd in striped pants, to high-priced operators such as Harry F. Ward, down to the street-bundering bully boys with their collars on backwards, and then down to the Marxist thug waiting in an alley. It is all part of the same operation. And there is more.

1. Roscoe Drummond and Gaston Coblentz, Duel At the Brink, (Garden City, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1960), p. 76. 2. John Foster Dulles, "The Problem of Peace in a Dynamic World," Religion in Lite, Vol. 6, No. 2, Spring, 1937, p. 197. 3. Ibid., pp. 206-07. 4. New York Times, July 15, 1937, p. 7. 5. Ibid., July 19, 1937, p. 5. 6. John Foster Dulles, "America's Role in World Affairs" 112

(pamphlet), reprinted by the YMCA, pp. 12-13. See also The New York Times, October 29, 1939, p. 24. 7. Federal Council of Churches, Annual Report, 1939, p. 130. 8. Federal Council of Churches, Biennial Report, 1940, p. 212. 9. Federal Council of Churches, Annual Report, 1941, pp. 93-94. 10. John Foster Dulles, "Long Range Peace Objectives" (pamphlet), statement submitted to the Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and Durable Peace, September 18, 1941, p. 21. 11. The Christian Century, Vol. 59, No. 12, March 25, 1942, p. 390. 12. John Foster Dulles, "Toward World Order" (pamphlet), A Merrick-McDowell Lecture delivered at Ohio Wesleyan University on March 5, 1942, on the occasion of the Conference called by authority of the Federal Council of Churches to study the Bases for a Just and Durable Peace, p. 19. 13. Ibid., p. 22. 14. Ibid., p. 26. 15. Henry P. Van Dusen (ed.), The Spiritual Legacy of John Foster Dulles, (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1960), p. 103. 16. Ibid., p. 104. 17. Federal Council of Churches, Annual Report, 1943, p. 197. 18. Post War World, Vol. 1, No. 3, April 15, 1944, p. 4. 19. Second National Study Conference on the Churches and a Just and Durable Peace, "A Message to the Churches" (pamphlet), (New York, Commission on a Just and Durable Peace, 1945), p. 4. 20. Federal Council of Churches, Annual Report, 1945, p. 147. 21. Federal Council of Churches, Biennial Report, 1946, pp. 159-60. 22. Ibid., p. 61. 23. New York Times, August 23, 1948, p. 4. 24. Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Reps., Testimony of Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, 83rd Cong., first sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1954), p. 3769. 25. Federal Council of Churches, Annual Report, 1947, p. 142. 26. Federal Council of Churches, Biennial Report, 1948, p. 105. 27. John Foster Dulles, "Peace With Russia," the Christian Century, Vol. 65, No. 34, August 25, 1948, p. 849ff. 28. Ibid., Vol. 65, No. 37, September 15, 1948, p. 950. 29. Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. 24, No. 15, April 22, 1958, p. 450. 30. John A. Mackay, Christianity on the Frontier, (New York, The Macmillan Company, 1950), pp. 138-39. 113

31. Quoted in William Lee Miller, "The 'Moral Force' Behind Dulles's Diplomacy," Reporter, Vol. 15, No. 2, August 9, 1956, p. 18. 32. Social Questions Bulletin, Vol. 37, No. 5, May, 1947, p. 80. 33. The Christian Century, Vol. 65, No. 34, August 25, 1948, p. 846. 34. Harry F. Ward, "Behind the Headlines," Social Questions Bulletin, Vol. 38, No. 8, December, 1948, p. 136. 35. Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3769. 36. Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Reps., Investigation of Communist Activities in the New York City Area, 83rd Cong., first sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print Off., 1953), part 8, p. 2274. 37. Oxnam, op. cit., p. 3765.

38. Ibid., p. 3741.


He who pays the piper, calls the tune.


IT IS Marx's graduated income tax, imposed on American workers by some of America's richest men, which makes possible the system of tax-exempt foundations. And it is the taxexempt foundations which make some of America's richest men even richer, by allowing them to accumulate billions of dollars of untouched wealth, with almost as much control over it as if it were legally their own. Former Communist official Maurice Malkin testifies that [in 1919, a Soviet agent named Ludwig Martens] came to the party and ordered us that, instead of depending upon Moscow to finance the American party directly and at all times, we should try to work out ways and means of penetrating philanthropic, charitable, grants, foundations, and et cetera, and these organizations like social-service organizations, charitable institutions, and other cultural fronts, to try to penetrate these organizations, if necessary take control of them and their treasuries; if not, to at least penetrate them where we would have a voice of influence amongst these organizations, in order to drain their treasuries that they should be able to finance the Communist Party propaganda in the United States, besides the subsidies that will be granted by Moscow.1

The orders were formally issued in the next year, says Malkin. They were supplemented in 1928 at the Sixth World Congress of comrades in Moscow, again in April 1933, and still again in July 1934, at the eighth convention of the Communist Party, U.S.A. Igor Bogolepov at one time fifth man in the Soviet foreign Office, testifies:

there were two major points of application of all efforts of 115

infiltration and, as I call it, ideological sabotage: The first one was America, and in Europe it was France.2 Indeed, testifies Louis Budenz, former managing editor of the [then] Daily Worker, the Communist Party actually had a subcommission on foundations, with two objectives: One, to obtain grants for Communists or those favorable to the Communist line on those matters which the Communists wished advanced, particularly the Far East and China, for instance, and then secondly, to prevent if possible, critics of the Communist movement from getting grants.3 They wanted propaganda prepared on the Far East—for bamboozlement of American boobs, whose neutralization was necessary—because that was the first area scheduled for capture in the Marxist plan for world conquest. Now how does this infiltration of the foundations work? Manning Johnson, once a candidate for the Communist politburo, testifies: . . . the subversion of members of the board of directors, the subversion of members of the trustee board, enables them to arrange for these foundations to make grants to specific Communist-front organizations; for example, a research organization or a group to serve a public housing, set up by the Communist Party, or a committee to advance civil liberties for the Negro.4 Were there any particular foundations the Marxists had in mind? The reports mentioned, says Budenz, "that particular targets of their efforts were the Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Guggenheim Foundations. . . ." 5 And what were the results? Well, Budenz testifies that the reports of the subcommittee on foundations to the politburo expressed satisfaction—that is, with their progress in infiltrating foundations and getting grants.6 They even succeeded in grabbing several openly, such as the Garland Fund and the Robert Marshall Fund. And Bogolepov testifies that he read about various foundations: mostly in the report of Soviet Ambassador in Washington, when he said what kind of people he or his officials meet from these foundations in this period of time, what kind of assignment they gave to these people. . . . He gave the names of the people whom he met, and the people whom his agents met. . . and it was such a big amount of names 116

that I really became confused. I just registered in my memory the fact that with every year the number of mentions of these foundations became more and more numerous, and the people involved in this machination of the Soviet Embassy in this country became also greater and greater. . . . Indeed, he says,
The majority of subversive operations in the field of infiltration of ideas, and which were favorable for the Soviet Union, the money which was paid for such service rendered was not Soviet money but American money.

The Marxists simply "put their people in these foundations or connected the people who were sympathetic to communism in these foundations, and they got the money for the right man outside these foundations. . . ." 7 On April 10, 1935, John Foster Dulles became a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation.8 In the next year, he became one of the eight members of its executive committee9—the small group of trustees who exercise even closer supervision over the work of the foundation's officers—and remained a member, with few interruptions, for years. In 1950, he became chairman of the boards of trustees of both the Rockefeller Foundation and the very closely related General Education Board,10 another Rockefeller foundation, and quit the whole thing only in December 1952, in preparation for his new job as Secretary of State. So Dulles, as we see, was one of the handful of men who actively controlled the work of the Foundation for some seventeen years. In 1951, some members of Congress, among many others, began to be disturbed about some of the foundations. Democratic Congressman Eugene E. Cox, for instance, calling for an investigation, complained:

The Rockefeller Foundation, whose funds have been used to finance individuals and organizations whose business it has been to get communism into the private and public schools of the country, to talk down America and to play up Russia, must take its share of the blame for the swing of the professors and students in China to communism during the years preceding the successful Red revolution in China. For two generations, the Rockefeller Foundation played a guiding role in higher education in China. . . . When the crisis of the Chinese revolution came, it was the 117

student and teacher element, educated largely with Rockefeller money, who were the backbone of the Red success. . .11

You will remember the Budenz testimony about how interested the Marxists were in China. And Republican Congressman B. Carroll Reece remarked later that "There is evidence to show there is a diabolical conspiracy back of all this. Its aim is the furtherance of socialism in the United States." 12 Well, first Cox, and then Reece, went ahead and held investigations. They made some highly provocative findings. Reece Committee Counsel Rene A. Wormser, for instance, writes that foundations "exercise a profound influence upon public opinion and upon the course of public affairs. . . ." 13 We hear of "research and experimental stations" established with Rockefeller and Carnegie money, in which could be found "many of the principal characters in the story of the suborning of American education. Here foundations nurtured some of the most ardent academic advocates of upsetting the American system and supplanting it with a Socialist state." 14 The Reece Committee reports:

. . . some of the larger foundations have directly supported 'subversion' in the true meaning of that term, namely, the process of undermining some of our vitally protective concepts and principles. They have actively supported attacks upon our social and governmental system and financed the promotion of socialism and collectivist ideas.15 A system has arisen, we read, "which gives enormous power to a relatively small group of individuals, having at their virtual command, huge sums in public trust funds. It is a system which is antithetical to American principles." 16 It is interesting to observe that the system works exactly as Marxist agent House said it would in Philip Dru. We read that the large foundation:
... is likely to find friends among the banks which holds its great deposits; the investment and brokerage houses which serve its investment problem; the major law firms which act as its counsel; and the many firms, institutions, and individuals with which it deals and which it benefits. By careful selection of a trustee, here and there, from among proprietors and executives of newspapers, periodi118

cals, and other media of communication, it can assure itself of adulation and support. . . .17

Observe still again the presence not of "oppressed workers" trying to "rise up"—but of wealthy collectivists trying to press down. The Committee reports, for instance, that while The New York Times gave ample and laudatory coverage to the Rockefeller Foundation, it was bitter and vindictive about the Committee. It seems that the president and publisher of the Times, Mr. Arthur Hays Sulzberger, was at the same time a member of the Rockefeller board.18 Even the White House got into the act. Indeed, says Wormser, the Republican White House picked as its man on the Committee not the logical choice, Republican Chairman Carroll Reece, but Democrat Wayne Hays, whom it telephoned for consultations. In fact, says Wormser, Hays "told us one day that 'the
White House' had been in touch with him and asked him if he would cooperate to kill the Committee. . . ." 19 Wormser writes,

it was uncomfortable to be led to believe that someone close to the President, perhaps one of his advisers or someone charged with delegated executive power, could have been guilty of such conduct. It was additional indication that the long arms of the foundations extended even into high places.20 Now of course, Judge Cox, in describing how the Rockefeller Foundation helped arrange the delivery of China to Mao Tse-tung, nevertheless said that "if the Rockefeller fund spenders had had even an elementary conception of what was going on among the Chinese teachers and students, they would have taken steps to halt the stampede of the Chinese colleges to communism." And Professor Kenneth Colegrove told the Reece Committee: " . . . I do not quite like to put it this way, but the trustees are in many cases just window dressing to give popular confidence in the institution. . . ." 21 The point was that the bald facts about the foundations were so incredible that most people assumed—even people like Judge Cox, who was himself conducting an investigation— that the trustees couldn't possibly have any idea what was going on; after all, everybody said they were such "honorable men." And so the Rockefeller Foundation, in the person of Dean 119

Rusk, then president, decided to use this idea in responding to the criticism. In statements to both the Cox and Reece Committees, Rusk explained that the trustees did indeed know what was going on, knew intimately, and this proved —since the trustees were such "honorable men"—that what was going on must be perfectly all right. We read: It should be a sufficient answer to these irresponsible allegations for the Rockefeller Foundation and the General Education Board to point to the roster of leading citizens drawn from many walks of life who for periods of 41 and 51 years, respectively, have guided the activities of these two organizations as members of their boards of trustees and as officers. They have included bankers and corporation executives, officers of leading universities, eminent figures in medicine and the law. ... It is beyond belief that these men have been guilty, as charged before this committee, of either perpetrating or conniving at 'the greatest betrayal' in American history, or of not knowing what they were voting funds for. Such charges are, we submit, false on their face, irresponsible in origin, and an imposition on the time and attention of this committee.22

The executive committee, of which Dulles, as you will recall, was a member for years, meets "at least" six times yearly, says Rusk. "The trustees take a lively interest in the work of the foundation." They "receive and read the publications of the foundation, including a monthly confidential report prepared by the officers for the information of the trustees. . . ." 23 It should be obvious, he says, "that the role of a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation is an active one, particularly for those trustees who serve on one or more of its committees. ..." 24 Let's take his word for it. Let's accept the very reasonable conclusion of Reece Committee legal analyst Kathryn Casey, that since the Carnegie Endowment and the Rockefeller Foundation "had deliberately chosen certain organizations consistently as 'agents,' the trustees of those foundations would be entirely aware of the activities of the organizations selected, as well as the views expressed by their executives," and that they were perfectly delighted with the results.25 Let's be aware of the statement to the Cox Committee by former Rockefeller Foundation president Chester I. Barnard, that "Mr. John Foster Dulles, who until recently was chairman of the board, has devoted a lot of time. . . ." 26 120

And let's be aware of the simple fact put to the Cox Committee by F. Emerson Andrews of the Russell Sage Foundation, that "The trustees of a foundation are the foundation legally. . . ..The whole power of the foundation resides in their hands." 27 Let's agree, finally, that John Foster Dulles, one of the half dozen or so most influential trustees, knew what the Foundation was doing—knew intimately—approved of it, and was legally responsible for it—and that we should now give to what Dulles was doing the same careful scrutiny as we would if you or I or anyone else were running the Rockefeller Foundation. It was in 1913 that the Rockefeller Foundation was imposed, along with House's Marxist income tax, on the American people. As we have seen, in fact, it was the Marxist income tax that made it possible. In the beginning, the Foundation specialized in medicine—and gets the credit for some wonderful work. There are heroic tales of intrepid doctors ranging far and wide. The Foundation helped eliminate or control in some areas of the world, for instance, hookworm, malaria and yellow fever. But then in 1928 or 1929, says Rusk, they decided to shift the emphasis to the "social sciences," and "prevention of war." And immediately, collectivists crawled out, eager to collect. Let's have a look at just a part of what we know about where the money went. In 1935, the Foundation began giving money to British geneticist J.B.S. Haldane, amounting in all to $53,572. "While Professor Haldane's association with the British Communist Party became known to the officers of the Rockefeller Foundation in 1942," says Rusk, "further support of his work was recommended until 1947. . . ." 28 That's all he says. You see, they felt his politics wouldn't corrupt his science. On January 19, 1940, the executive committee of the Foundation approved a grant of $20,160 to the New School for Social Research to be used by Hans Eisler.29 Hans Eisler was a member of the central committee of the German Communist Party. He came here as a representative of the Communist International, and organized Communist music festivals, music sections and literary circles. Top leaders of the Communist Party reported to him for orders. Indeed, V.J. Jerome, of the CPUSA central committee, and in charge of penetration into cultural groups throughout the country, got his orders from Hans Eisler.30 121

Furthermore, says Judge Cox, Eisler had already been ordered deported, yet his deportation was somehow deferred until his Rockefeller money could be spent. ". . . Now the Rockefeller people knew he had been ordered deported, and yet they went along with the scheme." 31 There is an amusing description by Rusk of how the Foundation checked on "rumors" of Eisler's Communism: "We precisely asked Dr. Johnson"—Dr. Alvin Johnson, director of the New School, through which the money would be issued —"to ascertain the position on that point with Mr. Eisler, and our understanding is that Dr. Johnson asked Eisler himself and made his, Dr. Johnson's, own judgment that Eilser was fully engaged and interested in his music, and was not engaged in any political activity." 32

Dr. Johnson asked Eisler whether he was a Communist,
and Hans apparently said he wasn't! Johnson was qualified indeed to conduct the inquiry, because on June 20, 1938, he wrote a letter to Eisler, saying,
I understand that your visa is being held up because you have been boosted by the Daily Worker as a Communist. I personally have no prejudice against Communists and can see no earthly reason why a good Communist should not be a good musician.33

The letter was made public by the government in 1947, but "I regret, Mr. Counsel," says Rusk six years later, "that I have not sufficiently reviewed the public statements of Mr. Johnson to be able to respond directly to that."

The Foundation, by the way, says Rusk, was having "considerable relations" with Dr. Johnson. Indeed, he apparently made the same statement about Communists in the question of hiring them to work on the Encyclopedia of Social Science, for which the Rockefeller Foundation and Spelman Fund had paid $700,000.34 In April 1948, the Rockefeller Foundation gave $7,500 to the China Aid Council. Rusk explains to the Cox Committee that "the presence of some left-wing writers in the committee was accepted as an unavoidable and calculated risk. . . ." The China Aid Council had been cited by the House Committee on Un-American Activities as a subsidiary of the American League for Peace and Democracy, explains committee counsel Harold M. Keele, which in turn of course had been cited by the Attorney General as a Communist outfit. Mr. Rusk. Our records show, Mr. Counsel, that the 122

grant-in-aid was made in April 1948, and that this organization was cited in December 1948. Is that the date of the citation that you have, sir? Mr. Keele. 1942. Mr. Rusk. Oh, no, sir; then we do not seem to have taken that into account.35 It was just another unfortunate "mistake." You will remember that on Rusk's advice, we should assume that Dulles knew what was happening and had no complaints. Then there was the volume called Christian Values and Economic Life, produced by a study committee of the Marxist-controlled Federal Council of Churches, in which Marxist agents John C. Bennett and G. Bromley Oxnam, the "personal friend," called for a "universal obligation" to do "socially useful work"; for a "democratic form of socialism"; and for the decision to "level up and level down wealth and income." Dulles definitely knew that the volume was one of a series financed by the Rockefeller Foundation,36 begun in 1949— the year before he became chairman of the board. It all fits together very neatly, does it not? But most of the money—by far—of course went to the various outfits the Foundation paid to do its work.
The Council on Foreign Relations

The Council on Foreign Relations didn't amount to much until 1927, when the Rockefeller family, through the various Rockefeller foundations and funds, began helping the Housemen out. You will remember the dinner at which the Rockefellers were apparently among the crowd who "put their faith" in House. In 1929, the Council got its present headquarters largely with Rockefeller gifts. Indeed, between 1927 and 1952, the Rockefeller Foundation gave $1,170,700 to the Council on Foreign Relations.37 Said Rusk: We cannot believe that the Congress will view with alarm our support of the Council on Foreign Relations, or will share the strange viewpoint of the legal analyst that the public service of a grant recipient is a ground for criticism of the foundation responsible for the grant.38 Observe the strange reasoning of this interesting remark. 123

The Rockefeller Foundation pays money to an outfit, in fact it pays money over many years to the same outfit, and yet, says Rusk, the nature of the recipient says nothing about the nature of the Foundation. Let's have a look. Let's recall the CFR subcommittee of 1937, headed by identified House-man Foster Dulles, and including securityrisk Philip C. Jessup and fellow House-man Walter Lippmann; and remember that we learned of the subcommittee in the foreword of a volume by another apparent subcommittee member, named Frederick Sherwood Dunn—who in still another volume expressed admiration for the Soviet technique of placing spies in the family group. In the same foreword we learn of a "generous grant" from the Rockefeller Foundation. Remember, also, World Economy in Transition, by Eugene Staley, in which we learned that the CFR Committee on Research included security-risk Philip C. Jessup, identified House-man Alien W. Dulles and Soviet agent Laurence Duggan; and in which Staley strongly recommended a book by Soviet agent Oskar Lange, and a "world plan on collectivist lines." The foreword of the Staley book says "The cost of research and publication has been met by a generous grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. . . ." Shouldn't we assume that Foster Dulles thought the whole thing was a good idea? In 1939, the House-men had offered their services to the State Department, and it was agreed they would do research in several fields. The Rockefeller Foundation agreed to pay for the plan.39 We recall that in 1946, the Council on Foreign Relations took steps to prevent the American people from being exposed after the Second World War, as they were after the First, to another "debunking journalistic campaign"—in other words, to the truth—and that Prof. William Langer was assigned to write a CFR "history." The Rockefeller Foundation we are told, kicked in with $139,000 over a four year period.40 Councilman Dulles knew about it, we can be sure, and was highly delighted. Rusk says so.
The American Council of Learned Societies

The American Council of Learned Societies was founded 124

in 1919 and is a federation of twenty-four national scholarly organizations. It dominates scholarship in the United States. The Rockefeller Foundation, says Rusk, has contributed to the support of ACLS for many years. Indeed, between 1925 and 1952, the Foundation gave $11,069,770 to ACLS,41 for such purposes as the purchase, between 1943 and 1952, "of current Soviet publications for American libraries."42 The Rockefeller generosity also included some grants for the specific use of Mortimer Graves, for such things as a "study of the role of humanities in international understanding," and a "report on the means of increasing American understanding of the Far East." 43 Mortimer Graves was for years executive secretary of ACLS. He ran the organization. He also was a sponsor, according to an advertisement in the Washington Post for May 11, 1942, of the Citizens' Committee to Free Earl Browder,44 a Soviet organization.45 Earl Browder of course was at the time national director of the Communist Party. Mortimer was also a sponsor of the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship,46 which was the Soviet organization headed by Dulles's "enemy" William Howard Melish. Soviet Russia Today, for September 1939, lists Mortimer Graves as one of the signers of the open letter calling for closer cooperation with the Soviet Union.47 What is far more important than the Soviet sponsorship of this operation,48 is the fact that only a few weeks before, Molotov and Ribbentrop had signed their "non-aggression" pact—which made Soviet Russia the ally of Nazi Germany —and that on September first they began the Second World War by dividing Poland between them. Mortimer also got himself listed by the China Aid News, of June 1940, as chairman of the Washington Committee for Aid to China. He spoke at a discussion meeting of the organization at the First Baptist Church, in Washington, D.C., on February 11, 1941, as shown by a leaflet called "Stop Shipments to Japan." 49 The Washington Committee for Aid to China was of course a Soviet organization.50 Well, the Rockefeller Foundation looked Mortimer over: "The officers of the foundation have reviewed from time to time . . . the general administration of the American Council"; and they liked what they saw: "and we have not felt that such reviews have suggested the conclusion that the foundation's support of the council was being abused for political reasons, and that therefore it should be terminated." 51 125

You will remember that Rusk also says the officers kept Dulles closely informed—so we can reasonably conclude that Dulles too thought Mortimer was swell.
The Foreign Policy Association

The Foreign Policy Association, like the original Council on Foreign Relations, was founded in New York in 1918. Like the CFR, its purpose is to "educate" Americans to a "proper understanding" of American foreign policy. Influential CFR members have also been active in FPA. There is Stephen P. Duggan, for instance, father of Soviet agent Laurence Duggan, and one of the original CFR directors; there is Philip E. Mosely, one of the research secretaries of the CFR's War and Peace studies, who has been a member of the editorial advisory committee of the Foreign Policy Association. And there again was John Foster Dulles, a contributor to, speaker for, member of, and diner with, the Foreign Policy Association. Between 1933 and 1950, the Rockefeller Foundation gave $900,000 to FPA.52 Indeed, the Reece Committe says that the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment have supplied its "principal financing." 53 In 1950, the Rockefeller Foundation spoke with approval of FPA's "popular Headline Books." 54 There was, for instance, a Headline Book by Alien W. Dulles, Foster's brother and fellow House-man: Perhaps one of the most significant activities of the Human Rights Commission was the decision to establish a Sub-Commission on Freedom of Information and of the Press. A most important step towards increasing international understanding would be to make available to all peoples accurate, reliable information both about the work of the United Nations and about the points of view of different countries. The Sub-Commission is to consider not only the problems caused by the suppression of information, but also the converse problem, the distortion and misrepresentation of information by supposedly 'free' newspapers and news agencies. The Human Rights Commission emphasized that 'freedom should always be coupled with responsibility and . . . that, in the future, measures should be considered against the deliberate and systematic distortion of the truth. . . .' 55 126

Now of course, we all wish Dulles hadn't endorsed this. That goes without saying. But as we see, he did. Observe here still another demonstration of the CFR attempt to control the material we are permitted to read. Observe the idea that it is wrong not only to suppress information—information about the UN—but that it is also wrong, apparently, to publish information about it that the UN doesn't like—and that newspapers which do such things aren't really free; they're only "supposedly" free. Observe especially Dulles's approval of the suggestion that in the future the UN should do something about it—which would one day be very easy, because America by then would have no armed forces. Alien Dulles goes on to approve of "coordinating the economic policies of the various countries." There is no chance at all, he admits, that the American people "would approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American membership in it. In other words, time—a long time—will be needed before world government is politically feasible. . . . this time element might seemingly be shortened so far as American opinion is concerned by an active propaganda campaign in this country. . . ." 56 Nothing could be clearer, wouldn't you agree? Identified House-man Alien Dulles here proposes a propaganda campaign—complete with censorship—to get America into a super state. In another of the Headline Series, we learn that "If democracy is to survive, it too must move toward socialism. . . ."57 "Up to the time this summary was written," says Miss Casey, "no book or pamphlet of a contrary point of view (published by the association) has been found. . . ." Indeed, she writes of the Headline Books: "Many were written by persons cited to be of Communist or Communist front affiliation and are questionable in content. . . ." 58 There was an interesting cast of characters indeed. There was Lawrence K. Rosinger, a prolific manufacturer of Headline Books,59 one of whose works had been recommended by John Foster Dulles's Post War World. Rosinger has been named several times under oath as a member of the Communist Party, the first time as early as 1940 in public testimony before the New York State Legislative Committee on the Public Schools.60 In 1939, the Rockefeller Foundation gave him a fellowship.61 And as late as 1949, when Soviet agent Rosinger was still naturally an adviser to the Secretary of 127

State on far eastern policy,62 the Rockefeller Foundation gave him $2,000 to go to New Delhi.63 Dean Rusk explains that "We did not know at the time that he would later refuse to answer under oath whether he had been a member of the Communist Party. . . ."64 Then there were Marguerite Ann and Maxwell Stewart. Both these worthies taught at the Moscow Institute in Russia, where Mr. Stewart apparently praised "Soviet marriage and morals." Mr. Stewart was also a member of the editorial board of Soviet Russia Today and endorsed the Hitler-Stalin Pact.65 Mr. Stewart has been identified under oath as a Soviet agent, of course,66 and they both have been active in FPA; Mrs. Stewart, for instance, as educational secretary in the association's department of popular education.67 And there was Vera Micheles Dean, who as you will recall shared a speaking date with Marxist agent Bromley Oxnam, and like Soviet agent Rosinger was recommended by Dulles by way of Post War World. Mrs. Dean was for years research director of the Foreign Policy Association.68 She also found time, in 1937, to sign the Golden Book of American-Soviet Friendship, which appeared in the Soviet magazine Soviet Russia Today in November of that year.69 You will remember World Economy in Transition, published by the Council on Foreign Relations, a Marxist front, and written by Eugene Staley, who calls for "a world plan on collectivist lines," and in which we learned of the close collaboration of security-risk Philip C. Jessup, Soviet agent Laurence Duggan and identified House-man Alien W. Dulles. Recall, also, that the foreword speaks of a "generous grant" from the Rockefeller Foundation. The same foreword says the book was prepared under the auspices of the American Coordinating Committee for International Studies, one of the ten members of which was Vera Micheles Dean. Mrs. Dean also helped prepare the propaganda kit for teachers issued by the National Council of American Soviet Friendship,70 the Soviet agency headed by William Howard Melish, John Foster Dulles's "enemy." Mrs. Dean worked with such Communist agents as Tsola N. Dragoicheva, of Bulgaria, and Madeleine Braun, of France, in setting up the Congress of American Women, a Soviet organization so important in its worldwide ramifications that the House Committee on Un-American Activities devoted a 114-page pamphlet to it.71 At one of its meetings, Mrs. Dean told the delegates to "whittle away their conceptions of na128

tional sovereignty" and to pull themselves out of the "ancient grooves of nationalism." 72 In May 1947, she explained in a talk at Vassar College that the best way to stop Communism—that is, Socialism—is not by a resort to "fear and reaction," but by promoting Socialism. She described the current Socialist program in England as "the greatest experiment of our time." Mrs. Dean is an "anti-Communist," you see: . . . Our quarrel with communism must not be over its ends but over its methods, she stated, and she urged a foreign policy backing socialist programs. . . .73

John Foster Dulles, of the executive committee of the Rockefeller Foundation, was legally responsible for arranging her pay, and according to Dean Rusk—who has never told a lie—the officers kept him thoroughly informed. And there was William T. Stone, Washington representative of the Foreign Policy Association, whom Staley also quotes with approval in World Economy in Transition74—and who also found time to try to get a commission in Army Intelligence for Soviet agent Frederick Vanderbilt Field, of the Council on Foreign Relations, who at the time was a writer for the Daily Worker and a member of the editorial board of the Communist New Masses.75 Moreover, we learn from a letter dated December 10, 1941, in which Field refers to Stone as "Bill," on stationery of Amerasia magazine, that Soviet agent Field is chairman, that Soviet agent Philip J. Jaffe 76 is managing editor, and that the board includes Soviet agent T. A. Bisson,77 Soviet agent Chao T.C.,78 "conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy" Owen Lattimore,79 and William T. Stone.80 A few years later, federal agents broke into the offices of Amerasia magazine, and naturally found it full of stolen government documents. We will consider Amerasia magazine again later. William T. Stone was graduated from the Foreign Policy Association and became a member of the Department of State. Where else could he go? John Foster Dulles was a very active member of the Foreign Policy Association, along with Stone, whose salary Dulles authorized, and we remember that the officers of the Rockefeller Foundation kept him fully informed. You see, says Dean Rusk, We express full confidence in the Foreign Policy Asso129

ciation as an agency for public education in problems of
international relations, which has become so vital since the

leadership of the free world has been thrust upon the United States.81 CHAPTER EIGHT: THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION 1. Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, House of Reps., Tax-Exempt Foundations, Hearings, testimony of Maurice Malkin, of U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 82nd Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1953), p. 692. (Cited hereafter as Cox hearings.) At one time, Malkin
was also assistant manager of the Daily Worker.

2. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 679. Testimony of Igor Bogolepov. 3. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 717. Testimony of Louis Budenz. 4. Cox hearings, op. cit., pp. 711-12. Testimony of Manning Johnson, of U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. 5. Ibid., p. 718. 6. Ibid., p. 720. 7. Ibid., pp. 677-78. 8. Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, House of Reps., Taxexempt Foundations, Hearings, 83rd Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1954), p. 353. (Cited hereafter as Reece hearings.) 9. Rockefeller Foundation, Annual Report, 1936. 10. Reece hearings, op. cit., pp. 357, 362. They usually had the same officials. 11. Ibid., p. 43. 12. Ibid., p. 25.
13. Rene A. Wormser, Foundations: Their Power and Influence (New York, the Devin-Adair Company, 1958), pp. 41-42. 14. Ibid., p. 142-43. 15. Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, House of Reps., TaxExempt Foundations, Report, 83rd Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1954), pp. 18-19. (Cited hereafter as Reece report.) Or see Wormser, op. cit., pp. 304-05. 16. Reece report, op. cit., pp. 17-18. Or Wormser, op. cit., pp. 303-04. 17. Wormser, op. cit., p. 41. 18. Reece report, op. cit., p. 33. 19. Wormser, op. cit., p. 349. 20. Loc. cit. 130

21. Reece report, op. cit., p. 26. 22. Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 1101. 23. Ibid., p. 1085. 24. Ibid., p. 1086. 25. Ibid., p. 900. 26. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 563. 27. Ibid., p. 38. 28. Ibid., p. 534. 29. Ibid., p. 530. Or Rockefeller Foundation, Annual Report, 1940, p. 316. 30. Cox hearings, Malkin, op. cit., pp. 701-02. 31. Ibid., p. 288. 32. Ibid., p. 532. 33. Loc. cit. 34. Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 894. The Spelman Fund was a closely related Rockefeller foundation and has been liquidated. 35. Cox hearings, op., cit., pp. 548-49. 36. John C. Bennett, Howard R. Bowen, William Adams Brown, Jr., G. Bromley Oxnam, Christian Values and Economic Life (New York, Harper & Bros., 1954). Foreword by Charles P. Taft. 37. Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 894. 38. Ibid., p. 1133. 39. Dan Smoot, The Invisible Government (Boston, Western Islands, 1965), p. 3. 40. Rockefeller Foundation, Annual Report, 1946, p. 188. 41. Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 894. 42. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 507. 43. Ibid., pp. 542-43. 44. Ibid., p. 544. 45. Attorney General Biddle called it a Communist organization, says the Congressional Record of September 24, 1942, page 7687. So did the House Committee on Un-American Activities, in its report of March 29, 1944; and Attorney General Tom Clark in a letter to the Loyalty Review Board, released to the press on April 27, 1949. 46. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 544. 47. Loc. cit. 48. House Committee on Un-American Activities, report of June 25, 1942. 49. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 544. 50. Special Committee on Un-American Activities, report of March 29, 1944, p. 143. 51. Cox hearings, op. cit., pp. 545-46. 52. Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 894. 53. Reece report, op. cit., p. 176. 54. Rockefeller Foundation, Annual Report, 1950, p. 210. 55. Alien W. Dulles and Beatrice Pitney Lamb, The United 131

Nations (booklet), Headline Series, No. 59 (New York, the Foreign Policy Association, September-October, 1946), pp. 43-44. 56. Ibid., pp. 44, 86. 57. Max Lerner, World of Great Powers, (New York, the Foreign Policy Association, 1947). Quoted by legal analyst Kathryn Casey, in Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 883. 58. Reece hearings, op. cit., staff report, pp. 884, 900. 59. Ibid., p. 901. 60. Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, Senate, Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, 82nd Cong., first sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1951), part 2, p. 469. Testimony of William Martin Canning. 61. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 541. 62. Testimony of Prof. Kari August Wittfogel, Institute of Pacific Relations, op. cit., p. 313. 63. Ibid., p. 474. Or see Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 541. 64. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 541. 65. Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 901. 66. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 722. Or see Institute of Pacific Relations, op. cit., pp. 563-64. 67. Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 897. 68. Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 1215. Sworn statement of Felix Wittmer, Ph.D., formerly asst. prof, of social studies, N.J. State Teachers College. 69. Loc. cit. 70. Testimony of Walter S. Steele, House Committee on Un-American Activities, July 21, 1947. Quoted by Wittmer, op. cit., p. 1215. 71. Wittmer, op. cit., p. 1215. 72. New York Times, October 14, 1946, p. 26. Quoted by Wittmer, p. 1215. 73. New York Times, May 12, 1947, p. 27. 74. Eugene Staley, World Economy in Transition (New York, Council on Foreign Relations, 1939), p. 220. 75. Institute of Pacific Relations, op. cit., pp. 9, 23. 76. Ibid., part 2, p. 437. 77. Ibid., pp. 534-35. 78. Ibid., p. 12. 79. Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Internal Security, Senate, Institute of Pacific Relations, Report No. 2050, 82nd Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1952), p. 224. 80. Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, op. cit., p. 35. 81. Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 1133.


Don't join the book-burners! Don't think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed. Don't be afraid to go in your library and read every book as long as that document does not offend your own ideas of decency. That should be the only censorship*

*Robert J. Donovan, Eisenhower: The Inside Story (New York,
Harper & Bros., 1956), p. 162.

It was fully appreciated that social studies would involve controversial subjects. It was felt, however, that a private foundation could, without itself taking sides on controversial issues, make a contribution by supporting objective studies which might illuminate such issues and reduce contention.1

Dean Rusk

THE SOCIAL SCIENCE Research Council was established in 1923, to "advance" research in the "social sciences." It acts as spokesman for seven constitutent member associations representing all types of "social science," including: history, economics, sociology, psychology, political science, statistics and anthropology. We were told in 1954 that over the years, the Rockefeller Foundation, and its closely related Spelman Fund, gave $12,514,250 to the Social Science Research Council.2 What sort of organization is the Council? Well, in 1926 it reports that one of its twenty-one members is Walter W. Stewart, who for years was chairman of the board of the Rockefeller Foundation.3 On the next page, we learn that one of the purposes of the Council is "to aid in the process of developing scientific social control. . . ." Social control? Mary Van Kleeck, of the Russell Sage Foundation, is listed as a member of both the Committee on Scientific Methods in the Social Sciences and the Advisory Committee on Industrial Relations.4 Miss Van Kleeck was probably a very charming gentlewoman, we are sure, but as chance would have it, she was also a Soviet agent.5 Another member of the Advisory Committee was Prof. Joseph H. Willits, who later became head of the Social Science Division of the Rockefeller Foundation. And identified House-man James T. Shotwell is chairman of the Advisory Committee on International Relations.6 133

The 1927 Annual Report, published in New York, lists Arthur M. Schlesinger as vice chairman. Walter W. Stewart is still a member. So is comrade Van Kleeck. And Edward C. Carter, of whom we will hear more later, is a member of the Advisory Committee on International Relations. The 1927-28 Report shows Henry A. Wallace to be a member of the Committee on Fellowships in Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology. Prof. William L. Langer, of Harvard and of the CFR, is a member of the Committee on Grants-in-Aid. Langer of course was the man chosen by the CFR to spend $139,000 of Rockefeller money in an attempt to prevent Americans from learning the truth about the Second World War. And a gentleman named John Foster Dulles is a member of the Sub-Committee on Export of Capital, of the Advisory Committee on International Relations, the same committee that recently welcomed Edward C. Carter. Indeed, only two years later, we learn that Socialist Party leader Norman Thomas, of the League for Industrial Democracy—which earlier had advocated "a resort to violence"—is also a member of the Committee on International Relations.7 We learn that David J. Saposs, of Brookwood Labor College, got a grant-in-aid.8 Brookwood was the outfit denounced by the American Federation of Labor for its Communist activities. Saposs of course was a Soviet agent, and a member of the board of directors, along with Freddie Field, of the LID. Nineteen thirty-one was a banner year. Ralph E. Flanders, who more than twenty years later as a U.S. Senator, would lead the censure movement against Joe McCarthy, is in that year a member at large.9 Norman Thomas is still a member of the International Relations Committee, along with Raymond B. Fosdick, future president of the Rockefeller Foundation.10 Wayne L. Morse, then of the University of Oregon, is a member of the Pacific Coast Regional Committee.11 Brailsford R. Brazeal got a fellowship to study economics at Columbia,12 which probably came in handy later, when he became chairman of the board of the Highlander Folk School, a Communist training center.13 And a grant-in-aid—that is, a gift of your money from this tax-exempt outfit, made possible only by the Marxist income tax—was given to Alexander Gourvitch of Amtorg Corporation, which is described as the "state monopoly of foreign trade in the Soviet Union." 14 I have no "footnote," but with your permission I am going to assume that Gourvitch is a Soviet agent. Nothing much happened in 1947, except that a Director-at134

Large was J. Robert Oppenheimer,15 who regularly contributed part of his pay to the Communist Party.16 Lyndon Johnson later reimbursed him, of course, with $50,000 of government money." And in 1954, another director-at-large is CFR official Philip E. Mosely.18 There are still other committees, the names of which will cause you either to burst into tears or begin to throw pies. There is the Human Resources and Advanced Training Committee, and the Committee on Social Stratification. There is the Social Behavior Committee and its subcommittee on Socialization. And there is the Techniques for Reducing Group Hostility Committee. Now for what purpose was the Social Science Research Council using the Rockefeller Foundation's twelve million dollars? We learn, for instance, that in 1934 the Foundation has given SSRC $78,000 to study "the problem of moving considerable portions of the population from economically unfavorable districts to regions which present better economic opportunities. . . ." And that among other things, the study will "appraise the accomplishment and potentialities of attempts at government control of population shifts. . . ."19 This seems to say "government control of population shifts," doesn't it? But obviously we are wrong. The Rockefeller Foundation wouldn't promote anything like that, would it? In 1944, 1947 and 1948, the Rockefeller Foundation and executive committee member John Foster Dulles gave a total of $138,000 to a special committee on civil rights of the Social Science Research Council's Committee on Government20 SSRC's assignment is described by the Foundation as a "factual examination of the civil-liberties issues" caused by "the actions taken to eliminate subversive individuals from Government service." We read that "Rigid loyalty requirements" and the work of the House Committee on Un-American Activities are among the problems to be studied, "to reconcile, if possible, the claims of national security and civil liberty." 21 Observe. The Foundation apparently isn't worried about Soviet subversion—which is trying to destroy our country— but about what is being done to try to prevent it. Observe, indeed, the usual Marxist line that there is some sort of antagonism between national security and civil liberty; that by inference a reconciliation may not be possible, which 135

might mean that national security would have to go. Nowhere does it say that without national security, civil liberty would be impossible. The chairman of SSRC's special committee was Dr. Robert E. Cushman of Cornell University. Before 1944, when the Rockefeller Foundation began to subsidize his project, Dr. Cushman wrote some pamphlets for the Public Affairs Committee, which were edited by Soviet agent Maxwell S. Stewart.22 In January 1947, in a paper presented to the American Academy of Political Science, Cushman apparently characterized as "nonsense" the sensible legal theory of guilt by association, because "good boys may associate with bad boys to do good." 23 He didn't explain how this would work. In 1948, the year Dulles and his cohorts at the Foundation handed over $110,000, Cushman again manufactured a Public Affairs Committee pamphlet called "New Threats to American Freedom." The threats didn't come from Soviet imperialism, he said. Not at all. They came from the drive to oppose it. He said it is difficult to define "Communism," and that this fact menaces the civil liberties of all "liberals" and "progressives," but he apparently didn't explain whether it meant anything that it was so hard to tell the difference. But if this means anything, he pilloried the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and labelled the Mundt-Nixon bill and the Smith Act as threats to civil liberty.24 In 1951, Dr. Cushman said the work of congressional investigating committees is similar to a "bill of attainder." 25 Almost Cushman's first official act, as chairman of this SSRC-Rockefeller project, we read, was to put Dr. Walter Gellhorn in charge of the works.26 Gellhorn, we read, has been a "leading member" of eleven Communist fronts. He has been an "active leader" of the National Lawyers Guild,27 a Soviet organization.28 In 1947 Gellhorn wrote a report on a Report of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, violently attacking HCUA, and defending the Southern Conference for Human Welfare,29 a Soviet organization.30 In 1948, the Daily Worker quoted with approval from an article by Gellhorn, in which he likened the House Committee to a "thought control" program, and declared: "More important than any procedural reform, however, is conscious opposition to the House Committee's bullying." 31 Indeed, former Daily Worker managing editor Louis Budenz testifies that he "repeatedly had official communications on Dr. Walter Gell136

horn. He was from, certainly, about 1942 on, a member of the Communist Party," 32 something Gellhorn naturally denies. Cushman apparently felt that Gellhorn was qualified to do the impartial and objective study that the use of your money would force Dulles, an executive committee member, to require. So Gellhorn, with your money, wrote an influential volume called Security, Loyalty and Science, the theme of which, writes legal analyst Kathryn Casey of the Reece Committee, "is that security regulations and loyalty programs are useless and dangerous. . . ." Gellhorn apparently feels it is wrong to deny Atomic Energy Commission fellowships to Communists; that loyalty checks bring into being a "police state" and the use of methods "far more dangerous than the small risk of having an occasional Communist on the fellowship rolls."33 It is interesting to note that Dean Rusk testifies the Foundation knew Gellhorn was to be chosen before the first grant was made.34 He "appeared to be a man who could be relied upon to do an objective study in this field." That he actually belonged to all those subversive organizations "has been so charged; yes, sir," and is "a matter that would need investigation; yes, sir"—but even if he did, so what, because you see,

his [Gellhorn's] lifelong interest in civil liberties necessarily involved him in many so-called protest organizations and necessarily enlisted his interest in individuals who themselves were subject to serious question because they are the ones who often get involved in these civil-liberty problems.35 A lifelong interest in civil liberties, Rusk implies, necessarily tends to involve a man with the Communist Party. "The results of the research supported by the foundation, Rusk concludes, "have not caused us to change our view of Dr. Cushman or his associates, including Professor Gellhorn." 36 So the boys at the Foundation knew all about it, and this means, according to Rusk, that John Foster Dulles, perennial member of the executive committee of the Rockefeller Foundation, and soon to become chairman of its board of directors, also knew all about it—knew, understood and approved. It would be profitable to study some of the presidents of this organization (to a committee of which Dulles belonged) to which Dulles and the Rockefeller Foundation gave more than twelve million dollars. 137

Pendleton Herring, for instance, is a highly interesting fish. He has been intimately associated with SSRC for years, as member and officer of innumerable committees such as the Pressure Groups and Propaganda Committee, and the Control of Social Data Committee. In 1946 he was a director. On June 15, 1948, he became president. His statement before the Reece Committee reveals a highly indignant Herring indeed.37 In 1936, he writes of the proper attitude to growing government control: . . . An extraordinary willingness to cooperate will be necessary if coercion is to be avoided. An efficient machinery of coordination is essential. Such a machinery could at least indicate the need for cooperation and suggest possible directions to follow.38
Of course if a citizen weren't extraordinarily willing to follow them, it follows that we might not be able to avoid the coercion. Moving along, we find that 1940 was quite a year. In that year Herring wrote: . . . Democratic government is not a set of principles which must be consistently followed but rather a method for compromising differences and for freely expressing disagreement according to generally accepted rules of procedure. The forming of policy can await neither the crystallization of a popular will nor agreement among economists upon what is sound. . . .39

You don't act on principle, you just follow rules. How you get the rule without invoking some principle, is not explained. You also act without waiting for "crystallization"—that is, before you know either that the citizens approve your policy, or even what you are doing. (Unless, without saying so, you have already decided what you are doing, or been instructed what to do.) So far, of course, we should, in the American way, give Herring the benefit of the doubt. We should simply assume that having been a member of the faculty at Harvard University, he just can't be held responsible for anything he does. Unfortunately, however, he goes on to explain:
. . . Fascism has preached nonsense about race, but it also has offered recompense to despairing masses. . . . The true significance of any subject is found in its strengths 138

rather than in its weaknesses. For example, the real importance of Nazism lies in its capacity for uniting and strengthening the German nation. We may deplore its methods, but its strength lies in its accomplishments rather than in its abuses; and hence we must understand its positive qualities. . . ."40 So Herring is another admirer of Fascism and Nazism. It is important to note that this book was published in 1940—during the almost two year alliance between National Socialist Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—when comrades everywhere naturally discovered remarkable positive qualities in Nazi Germany. In the next year, Herring explains that "with skillful leaders in positions of strategic importance public policy may be advanced even though all participants are not in full harmony. . . ." 41 Skillful operators in strategic places can do the job—even though most people are against it—which of course is an interesting technique. The present defense effort is going forward in a different world from that of 1917-1919. In most of the larger countries the spheres of politics and economics are now one. Totalitarianism is based on such a consolidation, and democratic countries cannot avoid the imprint, though in a lesser degree, of the same forces making for this identification. The best answer in democratic terms is that control must remain in the hands of those men who cherish the values of our culture. . . .42 So the basis of totalitarianism is the consolidation of politics and economics—in other words, a "mixed economy"— which of course is a truth Americans must quickly learn. But we can't avoid it, says Herring. We simply must become totalitarian. Control must remain with the men who cherish the values of our culture, which presumably means more Herrings. Political orators still talk about self-reliance, thrift, and fair play. These virtues have their place in the everyday life of each individual, but they cannot be offered as the means for solving public problems. It is idle to picture in our complex society areas wherein individuals are free to act as they please so long as they do not injure their fellow man. In our interdependent world such areas of freedom 139

are too narrow to warrant serious consideration. For those seeking liberty in these traditional terms one might just as well note that 'the grave's a fine and private place.' 43

If all you are seeking, in other words, is simply to do as you like without injuring your neighbor, you might as well commit suicide. Fair play should not be used in solving public problems.
Indeed: ". . . Hitler is leading a German response to deep challenges to which we in this country are responding in our own way," by installing, among other things, a "concentration of control, both managerial and financial."44 Observe again the profound truth Americans must learn in time—that Nazism wasn't essentially a scheme to murder Jews, but to concentrate control, as in any dictatorship. Indeed, Hitler couldn't have murdered all those Jews—and all those Catholics and Protestants—if he hadn't first concentrated his control. Says Herring:

. . . Today the negative conception of freedom as simply an absence of restraints has itself become a tradition and threatens our mobility, mentally and socially. . . . freedom depends not upon the shaking off of controls but upon their skillful administration. It calls for the reduction of frictions in the operation of our communal life.45 An absence of restraints makes it hard to move around. So the imposition of restraints would make it easy to move around. Indeed, freedom depends not upon removing controls, but on how cleverly they are applied. It's quite a Herring, is it not? And like all the others, it ends with a bang: Discipline, as authority imposed from above, becomes necessary when this obligation to conformity is overlooked by the individual. Democracy, as the highest form of social life, holds the highest expectations of each man's capacity to cooperate with his fellows. This is the duty of all those who would live in a free society. ... We can recognize the need of central controls and discipline without making these needs the central article of our faith. The point really is that a democracy to succeed must take for granted the social integration that a Hitler tries to impose. . . .46 It's quite a Herring indeed! We have no serial number on a 140

Party card to prove it is a Red Herring—and it is perfectly possible that it might be something else, like last week's mackerel or just another big mouth bass—but it doesn't make much difference, does it? Herring became president of the Social Science Research Council in 1948, the same year in which John Foster Dulles and the Rockefeller Foundation gave SSRC $110,000 of your money to prevent the Congress from exposing your enemies. Herring's predecessor was Donald R. Young. Young unfortunately lacks Herring's amazing literary gifts, but Marxist agent Gunnar Myrdal tells us that during the planning of An American Dilemma—cited by Earl Warren in his school "integration" decision, which gave the government control of American children—Donald R. Young and a couple of others "were relied upon heavily for advice." Myrdal continues: Mr. Young, in particular, during this entire stage of the study, was continuously consulted not only on all major questions but on many smaller concerns as they arose from day to day, and he placed at my disposal his great familiarity with the field of study as well as with available academic personnel. . . .47
Among the available personnel Mydral wound up with was a staff of six including Marxist agents Richard Sterner, Ralph J. Bunche and Doxey A. Wilkerson, an official of the Communist Party.48 Other people who did various research included Communist Bernhard J. Stern.49 And in the fall of 1940, Young was chairman of a committee which chose memoranda to be published from what Myrdal had collected.50 Myrdal himself wrote that our Constitution "is in many respects impractical and ill-suited for modern conditions. . . ." Indeed: ". . . Modern historical studies of how the Constitution came to be as it is reveal that the Constitutional Convention was nearly a plot against the common people. Until recently, the Constitution has been used to block the popular will. . . . " And finally, "today it is a necessity in everyday living for the common good American citizen to decide for himself which laws should be observed and which not," 51 a passage apparently studied by Martin Luther King, Jr. Young was also apparently the moving force, along with 141

Charles Dollard of the Carnegie Corporation, behind a book they suggested be written by Stuart Chase. Wrote Chase: My first conferences were with Young and Dollard, who have followed the project step by step and given me invaluable help. Before accepting the assignment at all, I consulted Raymond Fosdick, who has planned and encouraged many studies in the application of science to human relations; and he urged me to attempt it. . . .52 John Foster Dulles's good friend Fosdick, then president of the Rockefeller Foundation, conceivably was enthusiastic because of an earlier Chase opus called A New Deal, which apparently was studied by Franklin Roosevelt: Best of all, the new regime would have the clearest idea of what an economic system was for. The 16 methods of becoming wealthy would be proscribed—by firing squad if necessary—ceasing to plague and disrupt the orderly process of production and distribution. . . . The whole vicious pecuniary complex would collapse as it has in Russia. . . .53

The book written for Young, Chase tells us, is about how to achieve One World.54 He explains that
it takes only twelve to fifteen years to train a newborn child to be at home in his parents' culture, or any other into which he is accepted. Less than a generation would be enough to train all the children of the world to be citizens of the world. . . .55 And there was, before Young, Charles Edward Merriam, president of SSRC from 1923-27. In 1925, he enthusiastically reports that "there is abundant opportunity, by forbidding certain unions on the one side and encouraging others, for the cultivation of a vastly improved breed of the human race, far transcending the present type of mankind. . . . "Control is likely in the future to reach a point where it may be possible to breed whatever type of human being it is desired to have. Then we could breed morons and heavyhanded half-wits if we wanted them. We might even breed strange creatures as beasts of burden and toil symbolized in Capek's memorable play entitled R.U.R., automata cheaply constructed for toil, dominated by more spirited beings designed for higher walks of life. . . ." 56 Please don't waste time saying you don't believe he said it 142

I know you don't. In fact, you shouldn't. And in fact, I have just added the quotation to the page, as you see, and I don't believe it myself. You have the footnote. Why not go to your library and look it up. In 1931, Merriam writes:
... In Russia and Italy, for example, under Soviet and Fascist rule, a different type of loyalty must be generated, and this necessity has been the mother of many new and interesting innovations. . . . [Furthermore] The Red flag and the 'Internationale' are symbols of great specific value in enlivening the general theory of the social order. . . .57

By now, you probably figure that you've seen everything. You haven't. In 1936, Merriam outdoes even the Marxist ravings of Reinhold Niebuhr. First he describes our economic system: . . . Trials and executions are no less a phenomenon of industry than of government, and at times almost as publicly. Poverty, insanity, disgrace, the grave even, are in the train of the powerful who sit in the seats of economic government from time to time. More than one man has been sentenced to hari-kari by the decree of a financial board or boss who showed him the way out. The characteristics of the shame of power are repeated in a close view of many of the operations of industrial enterprise.58
And again,

The essence of organization is not roughness, as some seem to think, but management. Men may be influenced in many other ways than by pressure on the back or the buttocks with a strap. Behavior is successfully organized through medication, through diet, through training, through education. The human system may be reconditioned through the glands, perhaps; or the blood stream; or through any one of a thousand minor manipulations, stimulations, gradations, which move silently and subtly to their appointed end. There are psychiatrists who drive out the evil spirits; teachers who mold the mind without revolvers strapped to their side or spiked clubs in their hands. The strategy of control leans to the side of science rather than to the sword, to cooperation rather than coercion. . . .59
It is important to remember—as we read in Marxist theory 143

—that "The argument against force is not against force as such. . . ." The trouble is that: ". . . Force alone does not function well in dealing either with the altar or with the classroom. . . ." 60

On the other hand,
those who prefer blood and swords can find plenty of sharp swords in the world ready for their purposes and plenty of youthful blood ready to be shed in encounters of sundry sorts. There will always be streams of red blood, acres of soft flesh, mazes of sensitive nerves for those who can read the auspices of fate only in human entrails. I have no desire to wish away the obstacles to advance, but, on the other hand, I do not wish to shrink back from a hard task. It is even possible to combine a soft heart with a hard hand—provided that the head is not too soft.61 Remember that these aren't the ravings of a man safely locked in the dangerous ward. They are the ravings of a "distinguished intellectual," or something, who was president of the Social Science Research Council. And believe it or not, there is more. Revolutionists in our day will seize the organization of force, symbolic public buildings and properties, the organization of intercommunication and transportation, available gold, concentrations of food, fuel, and water supply. Thence they may reach out to forms of order and justice, to taxation and credits. With these established they may then advance to such controls as seem essential to the attainment of their social directives at the moment. . . . The armed forces are the first prize, but it is not always certain which way the guns will fire, if the morale of the army and the police is dubious. . . . Beyond this the discovery of the strategic points important and essential for the new program is far less simple. Imprisonment, intimidation, execution, confiscation may serve the purpose of the moment, but they are strong drinks rather than steady diet; and must yield to more systematic reorganization of power patterns in line with the new social directives. . . .62 As we have seen, this creature was president of the organization to which John Foster Dulles's Rockefeller Foundation 144

and its closely related Spelman Fund later gave more than twelve million dollars. In fact the Merriam gargoyle later became chairman of the Spelman Fund—one of the very organizations which had given him the money. The Merriam monster, in fact, was president of the Social Science Research Council through 1927—the same year in which John Foster Dulles was a committee member. CHAPTER NINE: THE SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL
1. Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, House of Reps., Tax-Exempt Foundations, Hearings, 83rd Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1954), p. 1089. (Cited hereafter as Reece hearings.) 2. Ibid., p. 894. 3. Social Science Research Council, Annual Report of the Chairman, 1926, Chicago, February, 1927, p. 1. 4. Ibid., pp. 20-21. 5. Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Internal Security, Senate, Institute of Pacific Relations, Report No. 2050, 82nd Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1952), p. 148. 6. Social Science Research Council, Annual Report, 1926, p. 22. 7. Ibid., 1930-31, p. 12.

8. Ibid., p. 56. 9. Ibid., 1931-32, p. 10. 10. Ibid., p. 14. 11. Ibid., p. 15. 12. Ibid., p. 23. 13. Alan Stang, It's Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights (Boston, Western Islands, 1965), p. 104. 14. Social Science Research Council, Annual Report, 193132, p. 25. 15. Ibid., 1947-48, p. 3. 16. Chesly Manly, The UN Record (Chicago, Henry Regnery Company, 1955), pp. 113-14. 17. New York Times, December 3, 1963, p. 1. 18. Social Science Research Council, Annual Report, 19541955, p. 3. 19. Rockefeller Foundation, Annual Report, 1934, pp. 213-14. 20. Reece hearings, op. cit., pp. 902, 1131. See also Rocke145

feller Foundation, Annual Report, 1944, p. 202, quoted in Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 898. 21. Rockefeller Foundation, Annual Report, 1948. Quoted in Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 898. 22. Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 901. 23. Ibid., p. 902. 24. Loc. cit. 25. Ibid., pp. 902-03. From the annals of the American Academy of Political Science. 26. Ibid., p. 898. 27. Ibid., p. 903. 28. Stang, op. cit., pp. 193-94. 29. Harvard Law Review, October, 1947. Cited in Reece Hearings, op. cit., p. 903. 30. Stang, op. cit., p. 98ff. 31. Daily Worker, March 15, 1948. The article was in American Scholar, Spring, 1948. Quoted in Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 903. 32. Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, House of Reps., TaxExempt Foundations, Hearings, 82nd. Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1953), p. 725. (Cited hereafter as Cox hearings.) 33. Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 904. You also paid for these other volumes in the series: Edward L. Barrett, Jr., The Tenney Committee; Verne Countryman, Un-American Activities in the State of Washington; Walter Gellhorn, Loyalty and Legislative Action; Robert K. Carr, The House Committee on Un-American Activities; Eleanor Bontecou, The Federal Loyalty-Security Program. 34. Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 1131. 35. Cox hearings, op. cit., pp. 516-17. 36. Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 1131. 37. Reece hearings, pp. 794-865. 38. E. Pendleton Herring, Public Administration and the Public Interest (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1936), p. 397. 39. Pendleton Herring, The Politics of Democracy (New York, W. W. Norton & Co., 1940), p. 40. 40. Ibid., pp. 97, 360. 41. Pendleton Herring, The Impact of War (New York, Farrar & Rinehart, Inc., 1941), p. 237. 42. Ibid., p. 238. 43. Ibid., p. 252. 44. Ibid., p. 275. 45. Ibid., p. 279. 46. Ibid., p. 281. 47. Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma, The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (New York, Harper & Bros., 1944), Preface, p. x. 48. Ibid., p. xi. 146

49. Loc. cit. And Committee on un-American Activities, House of Reps., Communist Methods of Infiltration (education), Hearings, testimony of Granville Hicks, 83rd Cong., first sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1953), p. 97. 50. Myrdal, op. cit., p. xii. 51. Ibid., pp. 12-13, 17. 52. Stuart Chase, The Proper Study of Mankind, An Inquiry into the Science of Human Relations, (New York, Harper & Bros., 1948), p. xvi. 53. Stuart Chase, A New Deal (New York, The Macmillan Company, 1932), p. 163. 54. Chase, Proper Study, op. cit., p. 294. 55. Ibid., p. 275. 56. Charles Edward Merriam, New Aspects of Politics (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1925), pp. 146-47. 57. Charles Edward Merriam, The Making of Citizens (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1931), pp. 24, 305. 58. Charles Edward Merriam, The Role of Politics in Social Change (New York, New York University Press, 1936), p. 50. 59. Ibid., p. 112. 60. Ibid., pp. 100, 112. 61. Ibid., p. 102. 62. Ibid., p. 106-08.


... So the matters that come before the board of trustees of this foundation in my experience have been given more careful attention by more competent people than I have seen in any other institution. There is just nothing like it, and the idea that this thing has been run without adequate attention by the trustees, that it is just in the hands of a bureaucracy of officers, just certainly isn't true, and it ought to be recorded

here that it isn't true.1

Chester I. Barnard President of the Rockefeller Foundation


IN 1943, a businessman named Alfred Kohlberg travelled to China. He discovered some strange things going on, since the delivery of China to the Marxist conspiracy was then being arranged by influential American reporters, scholars and government officials. So when Kohlberg came back he diligently began to read the publications of an outfit called the Institute of Pacific Relations, which of course was trying to "educate" Americans in Far Eastern affairs. Kohlberg had been a member of the IPR himself since 1928, three years after it was founded; indeed, he was now a director, but confessed "I seldom read anything they put out, and didn't really know what they were doing, although I was on the finance committee." 2 During 1944, he spent about six months reading all IPR publications on China for the previous seven years, and at the same time reading the material on the same subject in The Communist and New Masses, monthly and weekly magazines published by the Communist Party, "and I discovered a strange similarity of line and a strange shifting of line pro and anti Chiang Kai-shek at certain periods." One of the documents he may have read was a pamphlet 148

by Marguerite Ann Stewart, educational secretary of the Foreign Policy Association, edited by her husband, Maxwell S. Stewart, also of FPA, and a Soviet agent. We read, Ivan Petrovich Petrov might be considered a rather typical Russian city worker. Blond, rosy-cheeked, and of medium height, he has a keen sense of humor; loves to dance, sing, and talk until late at night and to enjoy himself with his friends; admires things on a big scale and adores mechanical devices and machinery. . . . Ivan, a very responsible worker, was a member of the factory committee, elected by the workers to advise the director of the plant. Each day he and Anna took Sasha to the attractive nursery school maintained by the factory for the children of its employees.3 This, according to Mrs. Stewart, is Communism. . . . But while the Russians are quick to condemn those who display ambition for personal power, they have no praise too high for the person who devotes himself conscientiously to the common good. . . . An additional motive peculiar to the Russian system is the pride of ownership of the Soviet workers. They have a voice in running the factories. . . .4 The truth of course is that they have less voice in running the factories than Americans have in running the State Department—in other words they are perfectly silent. Mrs. Stewart concludes: ... Communists are expected to be an example to others.. .. The 1936 constitution also introduced into the Soviet Union many of the elements of democracy as we know them in this country. It introduced the secret ballot.5

And Kohlberg definitely read the following masterwork by Soviet agent Stewart himself: As China is not like any other country, so Chinese communism has no parallel elsewhere. You can find in it resemblances to Communist movements in other countries and you can also find resemblances to the "grass-roots" Populist movements that have figured in American history. Because there is no other effective opposition party in China, the Communists have attracted the support of many progressive and patriotic Chinese who know little of the doctrines of Karl Marx or Stalin and care less. Raymond 149

Gram Swing described Chinese Communists as "agrarian radicals trying to establish democratic practices." 6
Remember that the Communist plan was to use tax-exempt foundations—such as IPR—to finance studies which would soften up American heads, without whose approval, or at least acquiescence, the delivery of China to the Marxists could not possibly be arranged. Indeed, among the other writers and officers of IPR were Soviet agent T. A. Bisson, Soviet agent Philip J. Jaffe and Soviet agent Y. Y. Hsu, top Chinese Communist in the United States.7 There was Soviet agent Harriet Lucy Moore,8 who was chairman of the nominating committee and a member of the small executive committee, which of course was in control. There was Soviet agent Anna Louisa Strong.9 There was executive committee member Owen Lattimore, "a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy." And there was the same Soviet agent Frederick Vanderbilt Field for whom William T. Stone of the Foreign Policy Association tried to get a commission in Army Intelligence, who was also a member of the executive committee, and as executive secretary of the American Council of IPR had been running the organization. Field quit as executive secretary in 1940, in spite of the protests of the chairman of the executive committee, who tried to get him to reconsider. It seems Field was just too busy, as head of a new Soviet outfit called the American Peace Mobilization—but he did remain a member of the executive committee of IPR, and, as always, its guiding spirit. The trustees included Henry A. Wallace, who would soon be presidential candidate of the (Communist) Progressive Party, Mortimer Graves, whose record we have examined, Soviet agent Maxwell S. Stewart, Soviet agent Lauchlin Currie,10 who at last word was supervising the distribution of our money in Colombia,11 and Soviet agent Alger Hiss. Louis Budenz testifies that the IPR was already "completely under the control of the Communist Party" as early as 1935.12 Former Communist official Maurice Malkin says it actually came under Communist influence in 1930,13 with comrade Field already in command. Indeed, Elizabeth Bentley writes that her boss in the conspiracy warned her to stay away from IPR because it was so completely Communist the association might expose her as a Soviet spy.14 In fact, IPR was not just another manufacturer of Corn150

munist propaganda. You will remember the case of Amerasia magazine—that Owen Lattimore and T. A. Bisson, of IPR, were members of Amerasia's board; that Philip J. Jaffe, of IPR, was Amerasia's managing editor. In fact, Freddie Field, head of IPR, testifies that it was he who founded Amerasia in 1937. He says that he and Jaffe together owned 99 per cent of the stock.15 So Amerasia magazine was simply a department of IPR. Indeed, it wasn't really a magazine at all. It was really IPR's department of military intelligence. On June 6, 1945, the FBI raided Amerasia's offices, found 1800 stolen government documents, and arrested, among others, managing editor Jaffe and researcher Kate Louise Mitchell, who was also of IPR, was a lecturer at a Communist school in New York,16 and for seven years had been secretary to Dr. Edward C. Carter —who earlier had studied international relations at SSRC, along with John Foster Dulles, and was now IPR's respectable facade as secretary general. Carter was one of those who, along with Stone, tried to get Field a commission in Army Intelligence,17 a position which of course would come in handy to a Soviet spy. And so the McCarran Committee, which looked into the mess, naturally concluded:
The IPR has been considered by the American Communist Party and by Soviet officials as an instrument of Communist policy, propaganda and military intelligence.18
Indeed, says Reece Committee Counsel Rene Wormser, [IPR] probably had more to do than any other single factor with conditioning our people to abandon the mainland of China to the Communists. Its influence even penetrated the State Department. And its support came chiefly from large tax-exempt American foundations.19

It seems that for twenty years, until 1945, the Rockefeller Foundation, for one example, gave the Institute of Pacific Relations $1,465,878.20 In 1946—the year following the FBI raid—the Rockefeller Foundation gave the Institute of Pacific Relations another $233,000! 21 From 1947 to 1950, Rockefeller gave the IPR $161,481.22 In 1949 there was apparently another $25,000.23 And at the meeting of the executive committee of the Rockefeller Foun151

dation on September 22, 1950—still another $110,000 was handed to the Institute of Pacific Relations. 24 In 1949, for instance, the Foundation gave $3,300 to Soviet agent T. A. Bisson—of IPR and Amerasia—to finance a book; gave some money to Owen Lattimore—of IPR and Amerasia—so Owen could take a trip to New Delhi; and gave $7,000 to IPR for a "study" on the Far East, to be committed by its research secretary—Soviet agent Lawrence K. Rosinger; another $2,000, as we have seen, so Rosinger could go to New Delhi with Owen.25 So after the FBI discovered by way of Amerasia that the Institute of Pacific Relations was not only a manufacturer of Communist propaganda but a division of Soviet military intelligence, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to give to it— and to various Soviet agents associated with it—these tax-exempt dollars; indeed, more than half a million dollars more of your money. How could such a thing possibly come about? In 1944, as we have seen, Mr. Kohlberg had begun his examination of the stuff published by IPR. He got together eighty pages of charges and samples, like the ones we have just read, and in November of that year sent them to the trustees of the IPR and to the Rockefeller Foundation. He also began to send out public letters about the situation, and sent copies of all those letters, too, to the Rockefeller Foundation. And since he was very suspicious about who his fellow members in the IPR might be, he brought suit against the organization—for it seems IPR wouldn't tell him who they were.26 This of course was highly deplorable. There is nothing in the world worse than a secret organization. In the summer of 1945, Dr. Joseph H. Willits, director of the "social sciences" division of Rockefeller, proposed an independent board of inquiry not connected either with the Foundation or with IPR. Kohlberg was to agree to withdraw his suit if the board of inquiry investigated and reported. Kohlberg did agree, but a few days later Willits called, saying that IPR's secretary general, Dr. Carter had asked him to withdraw as a mediator, and would negotiate directly with Kohlberg from there on. But Carter did not, and IPR refused to carry out the agreement. So Kohlberg continued to send out letters and to work through the courts. The IPR formed a special committee of its trustees, says Dean Rusk, and the committee reported to its board "that the executive committee and responsible officers of the American 152

council had 'investigated Mr. Kohlberg's charges and found them inaccurate and irresponsible.' . . ." 27 It is important to remember that Soviet spy Freddie Field, the man who conducted the activities for which IPR was denounced, was still not only a trustee, but a member of the executive committee which was supposed to have investigated Kohlberg's charges. Indeed, the person who prepared IPR's answer to Kohlberg's charges was Marguerite Ann Stewart,28 the wife of Soviet agent Maxwell S. Stewart, and the author of the piece of tripe called "Land of the Soviets," which reports how wonderfully well Soviet worker Petrov is doing under Communism. In 1947, Kohlberg finally got a court order for a special meeting, at which he introduced a resolution calling for investigation. The resolution was voted down, and since there was now no reason to remain, he resigned. There was never any private investigation of IPR. And the minutes of the March 18, 1947 meeting of IPR's board, explained that "Mr. Field had been reelected to the board with a majority—that, in fact, he had received a majority of the votes of the California members. It was noted in this connection that the nominating committee in preparing the ballots for the new board of trustees informed the entire membership that Mr. Field was a member of the editorial board of the New Masses." Indeed, we are told, Field is now reelected to the executive committee for 1947 by a vote of fourteen trustees in favor and only one against.29 So it is 1947, the "cold war" has begun, fourteen of the trustees know Field is a member of the editorial board of New Masses—in other words that he is a Communist—and yet they reelect him to the executive committee. This is the same year in which the Rockefeller crowd apparently began to hand IPR still another $161,481. Rusk explains that "had the foundation known at the time the grants were made of some of the information made available by later investigation, grave questions would have been raised which, if not satisfactorily answered, would have precluded any further support to the IPR." 30 What else did they need? Now of course, Rusk has said that the officers of the Rockefeller Foundation kept the trustees fully informed and that the trustees paid close attention. Indeed, much of what we have reported here was a simple matter of public record. But as we have seen, this was a situation in which it was 153

perfectly possible for an honest American to be deceived. Kohlberg himself said that until his own investigation, he didn't really know what IPR was doing. And the McCarran Committee concluded: "The names of eminent individuals were by design used as a respectable and impressive screen for the activities of the IPR inner core, and as a defense when such activities came under scrutiny." 31 Furthermore, what we are dealing with here isn't just another case of subversive propaganda. We are talking about the fact that the Rockefeller Foundation gave more than half a million dollars to an organization long after it had publicly been caught engaging in some plain, old-fashioned, enemy military espionage. So let's be as careful as we possibly can. Let's ask whether or not there is anything at all other than Rusk's general assurance that the trustees were well informed, to show that John Foster Dulles knew what was happening in IPR. Well of course, we all wish there weren't. That goes without saying —Dulles after all was a "conservative Republican anti-Communist." But unfortunately there is something to show Dulles had such knowledge. There is in the first place a gentleman named Philip C. Jessup. Jessup and Dulles were for many years very good friends. They served together as committeemen at the Council on Foreign Relations, where Jessup was a director and chairman of its Committee on Research. During the Berlin Blockade of 1948, Dulles relates, he participated in "day and night discussions" with Philip C. Jessup.32 Shortly thereafter, Jessup appeared as a character witness at both perjury trials of his good friend, Soviet agent Alger Hiss. And in 1951, a Senate subcommittee refused to approve Jessup as Ambassador-at-Large, possibly because since we last had a look at him he found time to become the sponsor of several Communist fronts,33 and was caught lying to the Committee under oath.34 It seems that Jessup was also a key official of IPR for years and was also a close friend of Freddie Field's. Indeed, Jessup was the very same chairman of the executive committee of IPR who in 1940 tried to persuade his good friend Freddie not to quit.35 And then there was a gentleman named Arthur H. Dean, who had been for years not only a member and director of the Council on Foreign Relations,36 but was one of Dulles's "closest lifelong friends," 37 and his colleague and successor as managing partner at Sullivan and Cromwell.

It seems that Dean was intimately associated with IPR for 154

many years. He was one of four vice chairmen, a member of the board of trustees and of the executive committee, and chairman of the Pacific Council.38 Indeed, says executive officer William L. Holland, Dean was a "major individual contributor." 39 It is fascinating to watch Dulles's "lifelong friend" in action. Let's remember the special committee of 1945, by means of which IPR proposed to investigate itself. A member of that committee, says Carter, was Brooks Emeny, later president of the Foreign Policy Association, the Marxist activities of which we have already discussed. Another was Arthur Dean.40 Arthur Dean, says Holland, was foremost among those who "did a considerable amount of research on their own. . . ." 41 It seems, says Carter, that Dean "questioned" Freddie Field.42 Yes, that is correct. We are asked to believe that Arthur Dean, who is smart enough to be managing partner of perhaps the world's wealthiest law firm, is also dumb enough to investigate the possibility of a Communist takeover by consulting with a member of the editorial board of New Masses! Apparently his extensive research was unsuccessful. We read of a meeting at which Dean presided and told Kohlberg "that the IPR was lily-white (not red) and he could vouch for it. . . ." 43 Even Carter says he knew years before, in 1940, when Field emerged publicly as a member of the editorial board of New Masses, "that he was playing the Communist line," 44 but Wall Street attorney Dean says that the organization Field heads is perfectly all right. So let's remember the meeting of the board of trustees of IPR on March 18, 1947, at which Soviet spy Field was reelected to the executive committee by a vote of fourteen to one. It seems that Soviet spy Field owed his success to his good friend Arthur Dean: With regard to Mr. Field, President Sproul had been of the frank opinion that the best way out might be for Mr. Field to agree to withdraw from the executive committee. During the course of the discussion, Mr. Dean and Mr. Gilchrist had pointed out that Mr. Field was one of the most valuable and objective members of the executive committee and that they had never known him to show any political bias whatever as far as the IPR had been concerned. . . .45 155

Now how does this strike you? We have considered the case of Amerasia, and read the tripe committed by the Stewarts, and it is perfectly obvious why a Congressional committee later reported that IPR was a Soviet propaganda and espionage agency. And yet here it is 1947, when it is already perfectly obvious what the Soviet conspiracy is all about, and Arthur Dean says Soviet spy Field, as leader of Amerasia and of IPR, has never shown any "political bias." In fact, two years later, in April 1949, the month before the Rockefeller Foundation handed IPR another $25,000, Dean writes as follows to Clayton Lane, executive secretary of the American Institute of Pacific Relations: I realize that you have come into an exceptionally difficult situation, but I think we might go back to the publications of the institute and with the help of Larry Rosinger point out the difficulties our State Department is now facing in attempting to get up a constructive policy for China. I think we might make a very real contribution to the subject if we could state very objectively, but explicitly, problems which we now face in China. I am sure Owen Lattimore would be a great help in this.46
Observe. Dulles's intimate lifelong friend, Arthur Dean, is apparently also very friendly not only with Soviet spy Field, but with Owen Lattimore, a member of the editorial board of Amerasia and "a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy," and with "Larry" Rosinger, named nine years before in a public hearing as a Soviet agent. Observe also that the situation here is exactly the reverse, isn't it, of what is widely believed: Dean, the trustee, knows perfectly well what is going on—and in fact is advising Lane, the officer. Notice how cleverly he advises that Lattimore and Rosinger, whom he certainly knows have diligently been preparing propaganda for years to speed the destruction of China, should now feign objectivity—to cushion the blow of growing public and Congressional hostility—now that the job has almost been done. And finally, when in 1950 IPR notified the Rockefeller Foundation that it needed still more money, says Dean Rusk, the Foundation officers met in June with "leading IPR personnel"—including Arthur Dean—to talk the thing over.47 So John Foster Dulles, we can be sure, knew, and knew intimately, what was happening in IPR, not just because Dean Rusk, who has never told a lie, says so. He knew, as we see, because his closest friends were causing the trouble. In 156

fact, by this time—June 1950—the mess had been reported for years in his daily newspaper. In 1944, as we have seen, when Alfred Kohlberg, a genuine victim of the hoax, discovered what was going on, he took decisive action as any resolute American would. And Prof. Kenneth Colegrove, another victim, who describes himself as a "naive professor," but was aware enough to resign from the editorial board of Amerasia in 1943 when he realized that something was seriously wrong, told the Reece Committee that "in the interest of American people, and in the interest of scholarship in the United States, and in the interest of scholars like myself, that we may never be misled again, that we ought to have the whole story of why the Rockefeller Foundation failed to make the investigation in 1945." 48 But on September 22, 1950, with John Foster Dulles not only a member of the executive committee, but recently elected or about to be elected chairman of the board of trustees—and therefore legally responsible—the Rockefeller Foundation handed IPR still another $110,000 of your money. CHAPTER TEN: THE INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1. Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, House of Reps., Tax-Exempt Foundations, Hearings, 82nd Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1953), p. 562. (Cited hereafter as Cox hearings.) Or Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, House of Reps., TaxExempt Foundations, Hearings, 83rd Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1954), p. 1086. (Cited hereafter as Reece hearings.) 2. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 652. 3. Marguerite Ann Stewart, Land of the Soviets, American Council, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1942, p. 17. Quoted in Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, Senate, Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, 82nd Cong., first sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1951), part 2, p. 566. 4. Stewart, op. cit., p. 26. Quoted in Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, op. cit., part 2, p. 566. 157

5. Stewart, op. cit., pp. 66, 69. Quoted in Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, op. cit., part 2, p. 567. 6. Maxwell S. Stewart, IPR Pamphlet No. 10, American Council, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1944, p. 45. Quoted in Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, op. cit., part 2, p. 565. 7. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 657. 8. Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, op. cit., part 2, p. 438. 9. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 657. 10. Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Reps., Hearings Regarding Communist Espionage in the United States Government, testimony of Elizabeth Bentley, 80th

Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1948), pp. 552-53. 11. New York Times, December 20, 1963, p. 12. 12. Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, op. cit., p. 516. 13. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 700. 14. Elizabeth Bentley, Out of Bondage (New York, DevinAdair, 1951), pp. 193-94. 15. Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, op. cit., part 1, p. 114. 16. State Department Loyalty Investigation by Sub-Committee of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 1950; p. 232 of report. Cited in John T. Flynn, While You Slept, Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It (Boston, Western Islands, 1965). 17. Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, op. cit., part 1, pp. 11, 23, 35. 18. Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Internal Security, Senate, Institute of Pacific Relations, Report No. 2050, 82nd. Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1952), p. 223. 19. Rene A. Wormser, Foundations: Their Power and Influence, (New York, Devin-Adair, 1958), p. 47. 20. Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 537. 21. Rockefeller Foundation, Annual Report, 1946, p. 40. Or see Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 892. 22. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 523. Or Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 537. 23. Chester I. Barnard, The Rockefeller Foundation, A Review for 1949 (New York, The Rockefeller Foundation, 1949), p. 78. 24. Rockefeller Foundation, Annual Report, 1950, p. 211. 25. Cox hearings, op. cit., pp. 540-41. See also Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, op. cit., p. 474. 26. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 654. 27. Ibid., p. 524. Or see Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 1135. 28. Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, op. cit., p. 974. 29. Ibid., part 11, 1952, p. 3920. 158

30. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 529. 31. Institute of Pacific Relations, Report, op. cit., p. 223. 32. John Foster Dulles, War Or Peace (New York, The Macmillan Company, 1950), p. 57. 33. Robert Welch, The Politician (Belmont, Massachusetts, Belmont Publishing Company, 1964), p. 219. 34. Ibid., p. 220. 35. Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, op. cit., Exhibits Nos. 13, 14, pp. 122-24. 36. Christian A. Herter, Toward an Atlantic Community (New York and Evanston, published for the Council on Foreign Relations by Harper & Row, 1963), p. v, shows that Dean is still a director, and member of the Committee on Studies. 37. Roscoe Drummond and Gaston Coblentz, Duel At the Brink (Garden City, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1960), p. 77. 38. Reece hearings, op. cit., pp. 552-53. And Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, op. cit., Exhibit No. 860, part 14, 1952, p. 5026. 39. Institute of Pacific Relations, Report, op. cit., p. 4. 40. Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, op. cit., p. 45. 41. Ibid., part 14, 1952, p. 5366. 42. Ibid., p. 45. 43. Ibid., part 14, 1952, p. 4942. 44. Ibid., p. 23. 45. See note 29. 46. Letter dated April 18, 1949. Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, op. cit., part 8, 1952, p. 2519. 47. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 527. 48. Reece hearings, op. cit., pp. 557-58.


I believe that the American people are sufficiently stout of heart not to want to be fooled. So long as there is peril, it is far safer, although not pleasant, to see the peril. Then there is a better chance that it will be avoided... .1 John Foster Dulles

Chapter Eleven: THE CARNEGIE

IN 1944, John Foster Dulles became a trustee of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Two years later, he became chairman of the board and chairman of the executive committee, and held all those posts until 1952. He must have felt right at home, for there to welcome him was identified House-man James T. Shotwell, of the Council on Foreign Relations, who had been a trustee since 1925. Indeed, also on hand was Dulles's old friend, also of the CFR —and of the Institute of Pacific Relations—Marxist agent Philip C. Jessup, who had been a trustee since 1937 and director of the division of international law from 1940 to 1943.2 The Endowment was created by Andrew Carnegie in 1910. It has twenty-seven trustees. The executive committee, as in the Rockefeller Foundation, consists of seven members, including the chairman and president. It, too, is a tax-exempt organization, and so the money of course is yours. It has achieved "stupendous importance and power," says Wormser and holds a key position in the areas of foreign relations and international organizations. Its influence, increasing over the past forty-seven years, has reached into the Department of State, into the law schools where international law is 160

taught, into the foreign offices of other nations, and into the United Nations and its associated organizations.3 The Endowment got to work early to create in the American people what president Nicholas Murray Butler called "the international mind." In the 1916 Yearbook, we read of "publicity through the newspaper press, lectures, and preparation and distribution of material for use in schools and by writers of school textbooks," all arranged by the Division of Intercourse and Education.4 Indeed, we are told in 1920 that A wide distribution of books, pamphlets, and periodicals has been made from the offices of the division, with the definite aim of informing public opinion on questions of international significance, and the educational activity of the policy clubs, together with the limited but important work in summer schools, have proved an effective means of developing the international mind.5 And by 1934, we read,

... If the world is to return, and without delay, to the path of progress, it must be given leadership which is not only national but international. It must find minds and voices which can see the whole world and its problems, and not merely those of one neighborhood since important problems which are purely national have almost ceased to exist.6

None of this, of course, happens all by itself. Says the Endowment in 1941: . . . It is this kind of planning for a new world order on a cooperative basis which furnishes the constructive program of the peace movement at the present time. It is therefore important to ensure the preparation of careful and thoughtful monographs in the various fields covered by these surveys in order to prevent a recurrence of the superficiality which marked so much of the peace movement of the 1920's. . . .7 For the year 1946 we read: The greatest lack in public education with regard to the American commitment concerns people who are not reached by any organization, since they have not been interested to join, and do not realize that they too constitute public opinion and have to assume their responsibilities as 161

citizens not only of the United States but of the world. . . .8 And finally, in 1947, in a report called "Recommendations of the President," we are told of the need for "close collaboration with other organizations principally engaged in the study of foreign affairs, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Foreign Policy Association, the Institute of Pacific Relations. . . . " Then there are: the large national organizations which today are desirous of supplying their members with objective information on public affairs, including international issues. These organizations—designed to serve, respectively, the broad interests of business, church women, farm, labor, veterans', educational, and other large groups of our citizens—are not equipped to set up foreign policy research staffs on their own. The endowment should supply these organizations with basic information about the United Nations, and should assist them both in selecting topics of interest to their members and in presenting those topics so as to be most readily understood by their members. We should urge the Foreign Policy Association and the Institute of Pacific Relations to supply similar service on other topics of international significance.9 The Yearbook for 1950-51, now called the Annual Report, displays a striking example of such close collaboration in a gentleman by the name of O. Frederick Nolde, who during this period is a trustee and member of the executive committee along with five others, including chairman John Foster Dulles. Nolde, as chance would have it, was at the same time director of Dulles's Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, which was organized, as you will recall, with the assistance of Marxist agents Bromley Oxnam, Reinhold Niebuhr and John Mackay, and was an agency of the Marxist-controlled World Council of Churches. The Endowment says it has also sponsored broadcasts featuring Vera Micheles Dean of the Foreign Policy Association, and Lawrence K. Rosinger of IPR.10 In fact, between 1926 and 1939, the Endowment handed IPR almost $200,000." Indeed, Secretary General William L. Holland testifies that half the income of the American Institute of Pacific Relations through 1950 was supplied by foundations, chiefly the Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Corporation and Carnegie Endowment.12 162

Then there was the vast network of almost a thousand International Relations Clubs, sponsored by the Endowment on college campuses. The operation was conducted by Endowment official Dr. Howard Wilson, says Professor Felix Wittmer, who from 1937 to 1950 was faculty adviser of the International Relations Club at New Jersey State Teachers College. Wilson participated, says Wittmer for instance, in a conference in New York of the education committee of the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship—the Soviet organization supposed to be "angry" at John Foster Dulles— and, along with Soviet agent Dirk Struik, in another such conference in Boston.13 Wittmer says the Endowment sent his club many of the publications of the Institute for Pacific Relations and the Foreign Policy Association, including pamphlets called Headline Books.14 Indeed, the Clubs later became associated 'with FPA.15 And finally the Endowment sent free about a dozen books a year, which had to be kept in a separate department of the college library called an International Mind Alcove—that's right—and the Alcove included, says Wittmer, publications of the American Russian Institute, cited as Communist by Attorney General Clark. The authors included Ruth Benedict, Evans Clark, Owen Lattimore, and T. A. Bisson, whose records we have already considered, and Nathaniel Peffer, who in a highly favorable review of a book highly favorable to the Red Chinese, and written by Soviet agent Gunther Stein, wrote that the Chinese Socialists "are exceptionally straightforward, simple, of unquestionable integrity." "I do not recall," says Wittmer, "that the book gift packages of ten to twelve publications per year ever included a single conservative or anti-Communist work." 16 Indeed, Prof. Kenneth Colegrove looked over a random sampling of Carnegie books that also included something by Soviet agent Anna Louise Strong, and couldn't find one book favorable to the United States.17 So we see, in short, that "conservative Republican antiCommunist" John Foster Dulles was the active head of an organization which was propagandizing America exactly as planned by Marxist agents House and Stalin. But an additional masterpiece of Marxism, unfortunately, remains. Dulles had become a trustee of the Endowment in 1944. In December 1945, President Nicholas Murray Butler retired, 163

and John W. Davis, member of the board and of the threeman committee to nominate a successor, says they asked Dulles to take the job. Dulles didn't want it, but he agreed to become chairman "provided we install an all-time working president on whom the administrative and presidential duties should be imposed. He was not willing to assume them." 18 With the characteristic selflessness for which he was noted, however, Dulles began to wonder about who the new president of the Endowment should be. It was quite a problem—even for the Master Statesman. Surely, it was a high-powered job—"peace" after all is tricky business—but, fortunately, the last thing he had to worry about was a lack of talent. Teeming under the lily pads in the Washington shallows were schools of red herring left over from World War II, one more charming and urbane than the next, and few with any aversion to making $20,000 bucks for imposing some "peace." With such a profuse supply, it was quite a problem, indeed. But somebody after all had to be picked. So after a while Dulles reached down from the moral Olympus where he spent his time, down, down—way down —and made his choice. He picked the wittiest of them all, by far the most charming and most urbane: a former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, a former member of the Department of Agriculture, an important State Department official and a director of the American Institute of Pacific Relations. His name was Alger Hiss. How do we know that it was Dulles who picked this distinguished Soviet Liar as president of the Carnegie Endowment? Well, they looked around through a number of candidates, says John W. Davis, "and finally the name of Mr. Hiss appeared." "Do you recall who first proposed Mr. Hiss' name, Mr. Davis?" asks Committee Counsel Keele. "Well, I can't tell who first proposed him. The first person who mentioned him to me was Mr. Dulles."

Mr. Dulles was the prospective chairman, and naturally the committee wanted his advice and any assistance he could give. He mentioned Mr. Hiss and spoke of having encountered him in this, that, or the other international affair, and recommended we look him over, which we did.19 164

And Alfred Kohlberg testifies that Dulles told him "he [Dulles] was the one who had made the recommendation." 20 According to Dulles himself, at the Liar's first trial for perjury, he first met Hiss in the summer of 1945, at the San Francisco Conference, which committed the "United Nations," and later on in London, at the first meeting of the General Assembly: " . . . I asked whether there was any chance he might want to leave the Government service and assume such a task as being president of the Carnegie Endowment." 21 At the Liar's second trial for perjury, Dulles says he first met Hiss at a briefing in Washington in March 1945, and that later on at the Conference "we had fairly frequent contacts." Later on, in London, Hiss was principal adviser to "our" delegation, "and I saw him quite frequently in that connection." And finally: ". . . After Mr. Hiss became seriously considered, it was I think through me that the committee obtained its primary information about his availability." 22 There is also the intriguing statement from John W. Davis, that there were other members of the Carnegie board "who knew him personally and who praised him very highly. At the moment, I don't think I can recall those names for you." 23 So on December 9, 1946, the board elected Hiss president, along with new board chairman John Foster Dulles. The cozy relationship between them continued; they divided between them the duties of the old office of president.24 Dulles explains that "after he assumed his duties as president of the Endowment, we saw each other rather frequently. . . ."25 You will remember the "Recommendations of the President" for the year 1947, which included the recommendation for "close collaboration" with the Council on Foreign Relations, the Foreign Policy Association and the Institute of Pacific Relations; and the manufacture and distribution of "basic information about the United Nations," to business, church, women's, farm, labor, veterans' and educational groups. The president of the Carnegie Endowment for 1947 was of course Soviet Liar Alger Hiss, and these are his recommendations; and Stalin's. But the most remarkable developments are yet to come. Hiss was elected president, we know, on December 9, 1946. Exactly two weeks after Hiss's election, a man named

Larry S. Davidow wrote Dulles a letter as follows: 165

December 23, 1946 Mr. John Foster Dulles 48 Wall Street New York City, New York
Dear Mr. Dulles: You may recall that I was a delegate at the Cleveland Conference, representing the American Unitarian Association. It has been brought to my attention that Mr. Alger Hiss either has been chosen or is being considered for a position with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The information we have would indicate that Mr. Hiss has a provable Communist record. The information in this regard comes to me from reliable individuals in Washington. If you are interested in becoming more familiar with this situation, these Washington friends of mine will be glad to arrange to have you meet with one or more persons who know the situation and will disclose it to you in full confidence. What I am writing you is likewise in confidence and done with the purpose of affording you an opportunity to become familiar with the facts and thereby avoid a situation which, if publicized, might prove of substantial embarrassment. I shall be glad to hear from you regarding this. Yours very truly, Larry S. Davidow LSD:NY


So we see that Davidow charged that Hiss had "a provable Communist record," and offered to get Dulles together "with one or more persons who know the situation and [who] will disclose it to you in full confidence." By way of the Social Science Research Council, John Foster Dulles and the Rockefeller Foundation had recently begun financing propaganda to prevent our Congress from exposing our enemies. Only a few months before, he had turned over another quarter of a million of your money to Soviet spy Freddie Field at the Institute of Pacific Relations. In fact at that very moment, Soviet agent Harry F. Ward —a man who gave Stalin lessons on the infiltration and destruction of religion—was hailing and using, with great success for the Marxist conspiracy, Dulles's anonymous Statement on Soviet-American Relations, composed for the Marxist-controlled Federal Council of Churches. So, Dulles immediately wrote to Davidow and affirmed that he was "confident that there is no reason to doubt Mr. Hiss' complete loyalty to our American institutions. I have been thrown in intimate contact with him at San Francisco, London and Washington and I doubt that the people you refer to in Washington know him any better than I do or have seen him actually at work meeting alien efforts."


December 26, 1946. Mr. Larry S. Davidow, Messrs. Davidow & Davidow, Suite 3210 Book Tower, Detroit 26, Michigan.

Personal Dear Mr. Davidow: I have your letter of December 23. Mr. Hiss was elected President of the Carnegie Endowment at a meeting of the Trustees held earlier this month at the same time that I was elected Chairman of the board. I have heard of the reports which you refer to, but I am confident that 167

there is no reason to doubt Mr. Hiss' complete loyalty to our American institutions. I have been thrown in intimate contact with him at San Francisco, London and Washington and I doubt that the people you refer to in Washington know him any better than I do or have seen him actually at work meeting alien efforts. I have myself in the past, particularly during the campaign in 1944, been the victim of so-called "documentary proof" that I was various things that I was not. Under the circumstances, I feel a little sceptical about information which seems inconsistent with all that I personally know and what is the judgment of reliable friends and associates in Washington. I greatly appreciate the spirit in which you wrote. Very truly yours, John Foster Dulles
Observe that Dulles says he has "heard of the reports which you refer to"—heard of them, that is, probably even before he picked Hiss as president of the Carnegie Endowment. Two or three days later, Dulles received a letter from Alfred Kohlberg, who then paid him a visit. Mr. Kohlberg, as we have seen, had by this time developed into one of these horrid types who sees a Communist under every garbage lid —probably because they are there—but like all the rest of us, he was, at the time, under the impression that Dulles was a "conservative Republican anti-Communist," so Kohlberg had come, conscientiously, to warn him about Hiss. "But haven't you ever heard anything about him, Mr. Dulles?" he asked. "Oh, yes," said Dulles, "several people told me he was a sort of fellow traveler, but they had no first-hand proof, and I do not condemn a man without first-hand proof." 26 Kohlberg, as it happened, had first-hand proof in the person of Whittaker Chambers, but there was no way, at the moment, of corroborating Chambers' story. So on February 24, 1947, Kohlberg wrote to Dulles: 168

With reference to the matter about which I called on you some time ago, I have gone into this quite thoroughly and find that the information, while first-hand, is uncorroborated except I am informed by the files of the FBI. In view of the fact that these files are not available for reference, I could not and I do not believe that you could accept the available evidence uncorroborated as definitive. I am therefore dropping the matter.27 (Italics added)
Notice that Kohlberg doesn't say Dulles should forget about it because it is all a mistake. Indeed, he says the corroborative proof is with the FBI—which it was. Hiss's Soviet activities were called to Truman's attention in an FBI report on Soviet espionage, dated November 27, 1945.28 In fact, says Nelson Rockefeller, who in 1945 attended the San Francisco Conference along with Dulles, and who says it was his job to meet every morning with the FBI: "They came in one morning and said: 'we have the goods on Alger Hiss.' " 29 What Kohlberg is saying is simply that he, as a private citizen, naturally cannot deliver FBI files. Imagine that you are perhaps the most expensive attorney in the United States, and that you are legally responsible for handing public money out. Imagine that you are a genuine conservative Republican anti-Communist, and that Churchill has just made his "Iron Curtain" speech, so you're sure the "cold war" has really begun. And now you're considering that first you heard "reports" that the man you have just hired to hand out the money—and to influence American minds—is a Communist; that then somebody wrote you a letter and offered to prove it; and that now somebody else, who, as you know, has already caught some Communists in IPR, says that definitive proof is with the FBI. What do you do? Well, in the first place, you call up the FBI, and you ask them whether the fact that you happen to be an official American delegate to the United Nations would qualify you to look at Hiss's file yourself. You know that the FBI cannot release these confidential files to anybody other than government officials, and that you may not be eligible. But the first thing you do is find out. "Conservative Republican anti-Communist" John Foster Dulles didn't even try. Another thing you definitely do is write another letter to Mr. Davidow in Detroit, and ask him what sort of evidence he is able to produce. Observe that he is, like Dulles, a member of the bar, and could therefore be expected to have some 169

understanding of the concept of evidence. And he is no "Fascist"; as we see, he has attended one of those religious conferences with Dulles himself. This doesn't prove anything, of course. You do know, however, that he deserves at least an honest hearing—so you write again and find out. But apparently "conservative Republican anti-Communist" Dulles didn't do this. What Dulles did do was to use a technique developed by his lifelong friend Arthur H. Dean at the Institute of Pacific Relations. He testified at both trials for perjury of his good friend Hiss, that as soon as Kohlberg was out the door, he called his friend Hiss and asked him whether he was a Communist. The Liar apparently said he wasn't, and Dulles put his own mind "to rest." 30 That's all, apparently, he did. We are considering a man who is supposed to be one of the world's leading experts on, and enemies of, the International Marxist Conspiracy.

In February 1948, more than a year after Kohlberg came to see him, Dulles wrote a letter to Congressman Walter Judd, a friend of Kohlberg's, asking him whether he could get from Kohlberg his first-hand evidence. Dulles described Kohlberg's letter to him and his visit. Kohlberg told Judd, who told Dulles, the same fact that the truth was with the FBI, where Dulles could find it. Kohlberg reports, . . . when I got back from China a little over a month later, I saw Dr. Judd and asked him if he had passed my message to Mr. Dulles, and he said he had, and he said the matter had so aroused his curiosity that he had looked into it and he had got the story, and that was in the month of not later than April 1948, some months before the HissChambers confrontation which occurred in August of 1948.31 (Italics added)

Congressman Judd looked into the mess and got the story —but Dulles didn't even look. Now observe that Kohlberg came to see him in December 1946, so Dulles could have written to Judd then. Yet he apparently did nothing for more than a year, until February 1948. Why in fact did he bother to write at all? Could it possibly be because only a few weeks later, on March 16, 1948, Soviet Liar Hiss would make an appearance before the grand jury? 170

Could it possibly be that the letter was simply another attempt to protect his reputation, in view of what he himself had said was his "intimate association" with the Soviet Liar; and in view of the fact that the whole putrid boil was about to break? Could it possibly be, in other words, that Dulles was simply using Congressman Judd to get on record the nonsensical impression that he (Dulles) was actively trying to find the truth? Indeed, at the meeting of the trustees of the Carnegie Endowment on December 13, 1948—more than four months after he is publicly identified by Chambers as a Soviet agent on August 3—Hiss, still the president, is simply given a leave of absence for three months;32 and although he was indicted for perjury only two days later, the Annual Report of 1949 explains that he is still a trustee.33 But perhaps the most incredible development is still to come. In 1949, we read that identified House-man James T. Shotwell, of the CFR, is now interim president of the Carnegie Endowment. His regime will, of course, be supervised by Alger Hiss, probably while commuting from his trial for perjury, since as we have seen, he is still a trustee, and Shotwell tells us—in the Annual Report—of "the way in which the collective system of socialism could actually work out in that freer system of economic democracy which was the ultimate goal and justification of the revolutionary process by which capitalism was to be destroyed. . . ." He explains that: ". . . Non-communist socialism resembles communism only in its acceptance of the elimination of exploitation as the ultimate goal, but it joins with this ideal that of the elimination of war and of social injustice . . . ." And he mentions "the way in which Lenin applied to Marxian communism a method of tyranny which, in spite of the halfhearted protests advanced from time to time by Stalin and others, offers the world no plan for the political edifice of freedom and justice for which the communist revolution is supposed to be preparing mankind." 34 (Italics added) Observe. Stalin, we are told, although he did so half-heartedly, actually protested from time to time that Lenin's brand ofMarxian Communism was a tyranny which offered no plan for political freedom! Stalin? 171

It doesn't prove anything, of course. Dulles maybe "didn't know" about the Annual Report. On December 12 of the same year, 1949, the board of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace passed a resolution deploring the terrible "pressure" being applied to Secretary of State Dean Acheson, for his energetic defense of his good friend Hiss.35 Don't go jumping to any conclusions, though. It was probably all right, because another member of the board—along with Hiss—was a man by the name of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had been made a trustee the year before,36 probably because of his remarkable powers as a roll-on deodorant —and as you will remember, Eisenhower wouldn't seem to get dose to anything that had even the remotest beginning of a connection with Communism. Anyone who would ever begin to say so, should be cut into tiny, little pieces and sauteed. Indeed, you will be glad to learn that in the next year 1950, Soviet Liar Hiss was finally denied Eisenhower's company and removed from the board. Yes, "conservative Republican anti-Communist" Dulles finally came through. In fact in that year, says the Annual Report, Joseph E. Johnson becomes the Endowment's new president. He is also a member of the six-man executive committee of course, along with chairman John Foster Dulles and O. Frederick Nolde, anda member of the finance committee. Who is Joseph E. Johnson? As chance would have it, he is a close friend and associate of Alger Hiss's, having worked for years as the Liar's assistant, finally succeeding Hiss as chief of the Division of International Security Affairs, a department of the Office of Political Affairs of the Department of State, which Hiss himself moved up to head. Johnson, in fact, is Hiss's protege. In fact, writes Freda Utley, Johnson resigned from his job as the Liar's successor, when a "leakage of top secret information" was traced to his department.37 So ... John Foster Dulles is one of the most successful attorneys in the United States; he is legally responsible for the administration of millions of dollars of public money; he says he is a conservative Republican anti-Communist; he claims to be outraged at having been tricked into hiring a Soviet agent; and, too late, he writes Congressman Judd, allegedly to get the truth—and yet he picks as the Soviet agent's successor a close friend and collaborator, who has re 172

signed from the State Department when nailed with a leakage of top secret information. There is in fact still another development which can best be appreciated at this point in our tale. As we have already noted, Dean Rusk was president of the Rockefeller Foundation during the Dulles-Eisenhower administration. Rusk was picked in 1951 by the Rockefeller Foundation and General Education Board committees established for the purpose and the chairman of those committees of course was "conservative Republican anti-Communist" John Foster Dulles, the chairman of the Foundation. On June 14, 1950, the year before, the government's Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, Rusk, had told the World Affairs Council of the University of Pennsylvania, that the Chinese Socialist "Revolution" is "not Russian in essence" and "does not aim at dictatorship." 38 Neither Mao Tse-tung nor Stalin ever ventured to give such a clean bill of health to the Chinese Communists as Dean Rusk. He went farther than almost any other State Department official in his desire to represent the Chinese Communists as good liberals who follow the American ideal. For he said that 'the Revolution in China' is comparable 'to the American revolt against the British.'39 On September 16, 1950, William L. Holland, of the Institute of Pacific Relations, sent a "Dear Dean" letter, asking Rusk "to lend your weightiest support to the double IPR financial appeal which is to be considered by the Rockefeller Foundation on September 22," and reminding him that: ". . . Your own position in this question is peculiarly important . . . . Your words of support for us to the Ford Foundation were very influential . . . ." 40 It was Dean Rusk who in another speech, on November 15, 1950, said that "we do not know" whether Communist intervention in Korea is part of a pattern of worldwide aggressiveness, and in fact that "we do not know the real explanation." 41 It was Rusk who persuaded President Truman to forbid General MacArthur to destroy the Yalu bridges, which the Chinese Socialists were using to supply and reinforce an army which was killing many of our men.42 And it was Rusk who, early in 1951, "wrote the message for President Truman when he fired General MacArthur." 43 So in 1946, "conservative Republican anti-Communist" Dulles hires Soviet agent Alger Hiss. 173

In 1950, Dulles replaces him with his friend and associate, Joseph E. Johnson, who has quit the State Department after the discovery of a leak. And now it is 1951—our fighting men are locked at that very moment in a bloody battle with the Chinese Socialists —and so "conservative Republican anti-Communist" John Foster Dulles hires Dean Rusk, who sees important similarities between Mao Tse-tung and Thomas Jefferson. In fact, says Rusk, he and Dulles were "close friends."44

1. Commencement speech at the University of South Carolina, June 6, 1955. Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 32, No. 834, June 20, 1955, p. 997. 2. Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, House of Reps., Tax-exempt Foundations, Hearings, 83rd Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1954), pp. 340-42. (Cited hereafter as Reece hearings.) 3. Rene A. Wormser, Foundations: Their Power and Influence (New York, Devin-Adair, 1958), p. 30. 4. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1916 Yearbook, p. 71. Quoted by legal analyst Kathryn Casey, in Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 906. 5. Carnegie Endowment, 1920 Yearbook, p. 62. Quoted by Casey, op. cit., p. 907. 6. Carnegie Endowment, 1934 Yearbook, p. 44. Quoted by Casey, op. cit., p. 909. 7. Carnegie Endowment, 1941 Yearbook, p. 117. Quoted by Casey, op. cit., pp. 910-11. 8. Carnegie Endowment, 1946 Yearbook, p. 39. Quoted by Casey, op. cit., p. 919. 9. Carnegie Endowment, 1947 Yearbook, pp. 16-17. 10. Ibid., p. 53. 11. Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, House of Reps., Tax Exempt Foundations, Hearings, 82nd Cong., second sess (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print Off., 1953), p. 581. (Cited hereafter as Cox hearings.) 12. Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Internal Security, Senate, Institute of Pacific Relations, Report No. 174

2050, 82nd Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1952), p. 4. 13. Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 1216. 14. Ibid., p. 1215. 15. Ibid., p. 883. 16. Ibid., pp. 1215-16. 17. Special Committee to Investigate Tax-exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, House of Reps., TaxExempt Foundations, Report, 83rd Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print Off., 1954), p. 173. Or Reece hearings, op. cit., p. 926 et seq., or Wormser, op. cit., p. 213. 18. Cox hearings, op. cit., pp. 569-70. 19. Ibid., p. 570. 20. Ibid., p. 659. 21. First Hiss trial, pp. 2551-52. 22. Second Hiss trial, pp. 3077-78, 3081. 23. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 570. 24. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1947 Yearbook, p. 32. 25. Second Hiss trial, p. 3082. 26. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 658. 27. Ibid., p. 659. 28. Chesly Manly, The UN Record (Chicago, Henry Regnery Company, 1955), p. 109. 29. New York Journal American, January 10, 1964, p. 3. See also New York Times, January 11, 1964, p. 10. 30. First Hiss trial, p. 2551. Second Hiss trial, pp. 3081-82. 31. Cox hearings, op. cit., p. 661. 32. Carnegie Endowment, Annual Report, 1948, p. iv. 33. See also New York Times, December 13, 1949, p. 7. 34. Carnegie Endowment, Annual Report, 1949, p. 2. 35. Robert Welch, The Politician (Belmont, Massachusetts, Belmont Publishing Company, 1964), p. 100. 36. Carnegie Endowment, Annual Report, 1948, p. iv. 37. Freda Utley, The China Story (Chicago, Henry Regnery Company, 1951), p. 121. 38. Loc. cit. 39. Loc. cit. 40. Institute of Pacific Relations, Hearings, op. cit., Exhibit No. 859, part 14, p. 5026. 41. Utley, op. cit., p. 122. 42. Harry S. Truman, Memoirs: Years of Trial and Hope, 1946-52, (Garden City, Doubleday, 1955), Vol. 2, p. 374. 43. J. Robert Moskin, "Dean Rusk: Cool Man in a Hot World," Look, Vol. 30, No. 18, September 6, 1966, p. 21. 44. Loc cit.


In spite of these developments, I had not acknowledged, even to myself, that I was an avowed candidate for the Republican nomination. I knew that once I should take the irrevocable step of declaring myself, I would be in a fight to the finish; a naturally combative disposition would never allow me to enter a contest except with the determination to exhaust every resource of energy and every honorable means to win it.1
Dwight D. Eisenhower

MANY STUDENTS of the theater should agree that the political career of "conservative Republican" John Foster Dulles is one of the great masterworks of dramaturgical history. As we have seen, Colonel House, in Philip Dru: Administrator, described what he called a "conspiracy," which inconspicuously controlled both political parties—and conducted meaningless "elections," to persuade people that genuine political activity was still going on—so that opponents of the conspiracy's Marxian Socialism would have no effective avenue of political protest. And so in 1944, "conservative Republican" John Foster Dulles, prospective Secretary of State as "foreign policy adviser" to Republican presidential nominee Thomas E. Dewey, held a three-day meeting with Secretary of State Cordell Hull. Said Dulles:
... I think that it was the consensus of opinion that the areas of foreign policy, where it was vital that there should be a feeling of national unity, were not disturbed by partisan debate. That particularly, of course, applied to the creation of the United Nations, which was the big foreignpolicy issue at the time. Since the war was still on, most of the issues were still war issues and there was no partisan division. The only big postwar policy that loomed up was the creation of the United Nations, and as to that we did find agreement.2 176

Indeed, we read in a United Press dispatch by R. H. Shackford: "On only one major point do they appear to disagree. Mr. Dulles had indorsed a plan embodying an international air force, the personnel of which would wear United Nations uniforms, operate from bases ceded to the international organization and swear allegiance to the world authority." 3 At this point in our narrative, of course, such "conservative Republican" views should no longer be a shock. Observe that "bipartisanship"—as the strategy came to be called—is exactly the same technique recommended not only by Colonel House some thirty years before, but now in 1944, some thirty years later, by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefeller Foundation; indeed, by most of the other organizations we have discussed, which specialize in "instructing" and "guiding" American opinion, such as the FPA and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As we have seen, the Rockefeller Foundation, was, in 1944, getting ready to hand $139,000 of your money to the Council on Foreign Relations, to prevent Americans from learning the truth about the Second World War. Observe in fact that Dulles doesn't say there should be no debate because nobody disagrees. On the contrary, he says that the United Nations "was the big foreign-policy issue at the time." His plan was simply to prevent that issue from being discussed. You will remember that the big foreign-policy issue after the First World War was the question of our entry into the League of Nations; that Woodrow Wilson made it a partisan political issue in the presidential campaign of 1920; and that the American people voted overwhelmingly not for comparative unknown Warren G. Harding, but against the Democratic Party's League of Nations. But now in 1944, says Dulles, Wilson's mistake will be avoided—simply by refusing to debate the issue at all. "To create the necessary political unity," explains Dulles six years later in a perfect specimen of bipartisanship, "will require some self-restraint in exercising political freedoms and in indulging in political controversy. It is, however, only in such ways that freedom is secured. . . . We sacrifice diversity only to the degree needed to preserve diversity." 4 In order to save diversity we must sacrifice diversity, says Dulles. You get freedom only by a mild exercise of political freedom. And one should also avoid political controversy. Indeed, says Dulles in 1955, those who don't may actually be guilty of endangering our nation: 177

I know that no American will deliberately imperil his nation. But that peril could result from careless or uninformed indulgence in partisan excesses. 'Politicking' is not as fully discounted abroad as it is discounted by the good sense of the American people.5 So Dulles by this time has been agitating for years, for a gradual abatement of our national sovereignty, which of course would mean the eventual destruction of the United States, and now he uses the argument that to suspend "bipartisanship" might endanger the nation. Observe also that along with Lenin and Hitler and all other totalitarians, this "conservative Republican" shares a profound contempt for genuine political activity. To be sure, it was perfectly possible, especially in the early year of 1944, to argue in good faith that the United States should join a "world organization," and issue "foreign aid." But it was equally possible to argue in equally good faith that we shouldn't. And these were issues of profound importance to the future of America. So there should have been partisan debate—long and meticulous partisan debate. Indeed, partisan debate is valuable precisely because it helps illuminate the opposing sides of an issue. But "conservative Republican" Dulles says that such debate should be prevented, even though the issue is so very important. Indeed, he says debate should be prevented because the issue is so very important, because, in other words, so many people oppose the UN—and that, after all, is what makes it so big an issue. If only an insignificant number of people opposed our entry, there wouldn't be any need for "bipartisanship," would there? It wouldn't be an issue. Dulles said, in short, that one could conceivably argue, say, about how much money to give the UN. That would be all right. But one can't argue that we shouldn't have joined the thing at all. One can argue, if one insists, about how much "foreign aid" we should give away; that would be "bipartisan" and "responsible." But one can't say we shouldn't give any away at all. That would be irresponsible, dangerous, maybe downright disloyal. And since Lenin and Stalin, like all other Marxist agents, were busily working for a world Socialist state, the Russian department of the Marxist conspiracy heartily endorsed Dulles's ideas. Said Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov at the San Francisco Conference: 178

The opponents of the creation of such an international organization have not laid down their arms. They are carrying on their subversive activities even now, though in most cases they are doing it in a latent and veiled form. . . . The Soviet Government are a sincere and a firm champion of the establishment of a strong international organization of security. Whatever may depend upon them and their efforts in their common cause of the creation of such a postwar organization of peace and security of nations will be readily done by the Soviet Government.6

And Joseph Starobin, foreign editor of the Daily Worker, the country's leading Socialist newspaper, wrote that it would be necessary "to pile up the greatest possible support for Dumbarton Oaks, so that less than thirty-three senators will dare to oppose the final plans. And the battle, we can be sure, will be hard fought. It will determine the entire future course of our country's development in its relation to our major Allies." The point, he said, was that "the Dumbarton Oaks plan is so inextricably linked to the unity of the socialist and capitalist worlds. . . ." In fact the United Nations would serve several highly important Socialist purposes:

... It will assist in the evolution of the colonial nations to their full freedom. It will be part of the world economic cooperation as outlined in the Bretton Woods program. It will provide a world forum of public opinion through which humanity as a whole can be educated to shy clear of fascist ideas and to undermine fascist influences." 7 You will remember the document composed for the Socialist-controlled Foreign Policy Association, in which brother House-man Alien W. Dulles approved the idea that "in the future, measures should be considered against the deliberate and systematic distortion of the truth" about the UN, "by supposedly 'free' newspapers and news agencies." Comrade Starobin agrees that the abolition of national sovereignty would be better than the proposed Dumbarton Oaks plan:

". . . But there is no point arguing for the abolition of national sovereignty and still expect to form a workable organization against aggression in our time. The fact is that no such plan could get the support of the existing national states. A world organization, in other words, cannot be built on the plans of fireside bridge players or the mental 179

manipulations of well-intentioned individuals who do not recognize existing realities. The only workable proposals for transcending national sovereignties are those offered by the Soviet experience, a multi-national state, based on Socialism. Until the world is ready for Socialism, no superstate is possible, and all talk of one is idle. . . ." 8

And in his FPA Headline Book written a year later, "conservative Republican anti-Communist" Alien Dulles explains in a passage some of which we have seen before:
Although the ultimate need for an organization stronger than the United Nations must be clear to any thoughtful observer, the question of what type of organization is realistically possible at the present time is the real issue. Russia is by no means the sole obstacle. There is no indication that American public opinion, for example, would approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American membership in it. In other words, time—a long time—will be needed before world government is politically feasible. . . . Observe that to make world government palatable, "antiCommunist" Dulles gives the impression that the Russians don't want it. We shouldn't jump to any conclusions, though. Alien may simply have missed Molotov's speech! So "bipartisanship" began as part of the scheme of the International Marxist Conspiracy to trick the United States into an international Socialist organization. In 1945, during the Truman Administration, "conservative Republican" John Foster Dulles was a senior member of the American delegation to the San Francisco Conference which established the United Nations. Indeed, before becoming Secretary of State, he regularly represented the United States at innumerable United Nations affairs.9 Also in 1945, he attended the first meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, as adviser to Democratic Secretary of State James Byrnes. Two years later he was at the Moscow and London meetings to advise Democratic Secretary Marshall. In 1949, he was in Paris to advise Democratic Secretary Acheson. In fact in that year, "conservative Republican" Dulles publicly took credit for enthusiastic participation in the formulation of Democratic foreign policy.10 In fact, says "conservative Republican" John Foster Dulles, "most of my international activities of a public character have been carried out under Democratic Presidents—President Wilson, President Roosevelt, and President Truman." l1 180

And this raises the question of exactly what sort of "conservative Republican" Dulles actually is. On September 18, 1941, he explained in a statement to the Marxist-controlled Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and Durable Peace: President Roosevelt has dealt boldly and dramatically with domestic problems. Recognizing the failure of our society, as organized, to adapt itself to new conditions and to meet the imperative needs of human beings, he has effectively grappled with the problem and has not hesitated to break with tradition and to alter fundamentally the entire structure of our economic order. As to much that he has done there is disagreement. But few would seek to undo the great social reforms he has effected.12

A remark such as this doesn't prove in any way either that the maker is disloyal or that he wants to impose a dictatorship on the United States. It was perfectly possible, in 1941, for a loyal and libertarian American to make it. He would have been wrong, of course, but it was perfectly possible to be honestly wrong. Indeed, even today many Americans still would make it—and at the same time fight any and all enemies of the United States. But what it does unavoidably prove, is that the maker simply cannot be considered a conservative Republican—or any sort of Republican. He isn't a conservative Democrat. Many conservative Democrats—and many moderate Democrats, such as the highly respected Governor Alfred E. Smith— came to deplore the destructive policies of Franklin Roosevelt. The only place for a man who hails as "great social reforms" Roosevelt's decision "to alter fundamentally the entire structure of our economic order"—provided of course that he isn't secretly trying to destroy the United States—is the Left Wing of the Democratic Party. So what we are seeing here is simply another demonstration of the fact that, like so many others, Dulles is actually only impersonating a Republican, only acting the part, just as so many others are acting as Democrats—in order to deny Americans a genuine choice, and at the same time give the impression that a choice exists—when all along these actors belong to one apolitical, monolithic body which is surreptitiously trying to destroy America. On July 8, 1949, "conservative Republican" Dulles was sworn in as United States Senator from New York, as Gover181

nor Dewey's choice to replace the ailing Robert F. Wagner, Sr. On the same day Dulles resigned from Sullivan & Cromwell. The store would be well minded however, because as you will remember, he would be replaced as managing partner by lifelong friend Arthur Dean—friend and defender of Soviet spy Freddy Field. And in November of that year, Dulles ran in an election for the year remaining in the term. It was as usual a "bipartisan" election—for his "opponent" was Herbert Lehman of Lehman Brothers, former director-general of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, which had recently helped deliver Poland to Socialist Joe Stalin.13 But the "election" had to be held, because around the state there were millions of honest, industrious, loyal Americans —who were just too accustomed to elections to give them up. So "conservative Republican" Dulles now arranged his face and presented some "individualism" to the American people. In his acceptance speech, he declared: ... I do not believe that Americans are now ready to abdicate, to surrender their individuality. I believe the American citizen today wants something better for himself and his children than a code number in a Government index. . . .
He claimed to believe that: the accumulation of Federal power is already near the peril point. It is near the point of no return. If Congress were now to grant the new powers which the President has already asked for, the result would be a government so powerful that there could be no turning back. We would then be, not a self-reliant people, but a dependent people —on leash from birth to death to a Federal bureaucracy. And he condemned Truman's plans for socialized medicine, aid to education, public housing and handouts to agriculture. He even condemned high taxes!14 As we have seen, Dulles had, year after year, enthusiastically supported these very things, hadn't he. Only a few years before, as you will recall, he had been chairman of that Federal Council of Churches Conference which informed us that "collectivism is coming whether we like it or not"; that we need taxation designed to "the end that our wealth may be more equitably distributed"; that we might as well experiment with government ownership; and that "every individual has 182

an obligation to work in some socially necessary service." As a member of the executive committee of the Rockefeller Foundation he had delivered millions of dollars of your money to the Social Science Research Council, an outfit headed by admirers of Communism and Nazism, who want nothing else for you and your children but the very code numbers in a government index Dulles now said he was against. Indeed, we have just finished discussing Dulles's shrieks of praise for the "social reforms" of Franklin Roosevelt. "Commenting on Mr. Lehman's opening campaign speech on Thursday night," we read in The New York Times, "Senator Dulles said the Democratic candidate was engaging in 'the old New Deal political game of spanking the "Commies" and their fellow-travelers in public and coddling them in private.' " 15 Dulles had been for years an intimate associate of Marxist agents Reinhold Niebuhr, Bromley Oxnam, John Bennett and John Mackay. He is a close friend of Marxist agent Philip C. Jessup's. He is a close friend of Marxist agent Walter Lippmann, a leader of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. He has just handed a quarter of a million dollars of your money to Soviet spy Freddie Field. His good friend Alger Hiss is at this very moment on trial for perjury. Dulles is getting ready to replace him with the Liar's close friend, Joseph E. Johnson. And he will soon hire Dean Rusk—an admitted admirer of Mao Tse-tung—as president of the Rockefeller Foundation. And now, during a political campaign, "conservative Republican anti-Communist" Dulles accuses his opponent of privately coddling Communists! At the time, when investigation was beginning to expose the extent of Communist infiltration of American life, Dulles was saying what a conservative Republican was expected to say. The Soviet policy is "to back every group or faction that is working to build up an all-powerful government," Dulles now warns. "The objective of this strategy," the candidate said, "was 'to make the individual so dependent, so enfeebled, that he is no longer a dependable source of resistance to the Communist idea that only man's material condition is important.' " 16 In fact, Dulles admitted, it's getting so bad, that unless the trend is checked, we may have to fight our way back to freedom "through revolution." 17 And finally, "He told a street crowd at Richmondville that the principal issue in the Senatorial race was 'whether you 183

are going to have in the Senate someone pushing us down the road to Socialism or whether you are going to have someone there who is going to act as a check.' " 18 How does all of this add up? What should we conclude about these statements? Well, they aren't just exaggerations, are they? Dulles isn't just somewhat less opposed to Socialism than he now claims to be. And they aren't just distortions. He isn't just claiming that he investigated Hiss but that nothing could be learned. They aren't just political peccadilloes a voter can expect. Whether we like it or not—and of course we don't like it, that goes without saying—there is only one thing we can call these remarks, after laying them next to pages and pages recording years of Dulles's doings. They are lies. We don't want to believe that, of course—nobody does. But there just isn't anything else we can do, is there? Because as we have seen, all the preceding pages of evidence aren't our idea—they're Dulles's. Year after year, on page after page, in outfit after outfit and grant after grant, with friend after friend and in speech after speech, he had worked implacably for the exact opposite of what he told us in 1949. The campaign he conducted was simply a fraud. We are not saying here that Dulles didn't have the unalienable right to say what he liked. In our country any candidate is inviolably free, for instance, to base his agricultural policies on the idea that the moon is made of pistachio ice cream—in fact many have—and then take his chances with the boobs in the voting booths. But since what a candidate says, is the important, if not the only, way the voters can find out what the candidate thinks, he has absolutely no right—no more than a salesman selling automobiles or a broker selling a stock—to promise the delivery of one thing, when all along he's selling not only something else, but the exact opposite. It is interesting to observe that in 1950, the year after he won rave reviews for his masterful performance as a "conservative Republican," Dulles was appointed to his good friend Dean Acheson's State Department—after Harry Truman had been mollified and convinced. It seems that the Harried Haberdasher, who is certainly a real Democrat, had been under the impression, like the rest of us, that Dulles's nasty campaign was for real. Now it is 1952. The American people are thoroughly aroused. Angry constituents are sending angry mail. Congressional investigations are beginning to reveal how China really 184

"fell" to Mao with a push from powerful people in the United States; and the incredible extent to which Marxist agents had infiltrated and were influencing American life—especially our government. It is important to record here that although what was happening was treason—in our government—it was of course not the work of Democrats. Democrats do not commit treason. Real Democrats, like real Republicans, are thoroughly loyal men and women, working at the genuine politics that keep our country free, who would, like Thomas Jefferson, fight to the death against any enemy of the United States. The trouble was actually caused by phony Democrats, by "liberal" Democrats and "conservative" Democrats, doing in the Democratic Party what their colleague John Foster Dulles was doing in the Republican. Soviet agent Alger Hiss, if memory serves, was a "Democrat." So is Dean Rusk. So were Soviet agents Harry Dexter White and Lauchlin Currie. And it wasn't the work of Harry Truman. Truman, the real Democrat, can only be described—for the earlier part of his Administration—as an unfortunate victim. The departing Roosevelt had told his vice president almost nothing about what was going on. And Truman simply wasn't smart enough to find out. In fact, so absolute and impenetrable is his reptilian ignorance that it has become a perverse sort of integrity. As a sage has remarked, "If you do not know how to run a haberdashery, do not attempt to become president of the United States." All of this being true, however, it was also true that the crimes had been committed during various Democratic Administrations, and that millions of good and true Democrats had been the victims. It was a situation made to order for a true conservative Republican. But it was also a terrible situation for a phony conservative Republican. It was obvious that any Republican would win the White House—any Republican—especially so respected a Republican as Robert A. Taft; but that was exactly the problem. Any Republican who got elected, especially Robert A. Taft, would naturally begin by cleaning out—root and branch, paw and snout—all of the actors the subverters had managed to install. Years of victories for "democracy" would be wiped out. In fact, there would be an exodus of invetebrates, swimming east from New York, so vast, so abrupt, that Americans from as far west as Chicago might have to stand along the eastern seaboard, to prevent the pos185

sibility that the continent might tilt and inundate Arizona with the Pacific Ocean. From the commanding heights at the apex of the world conspiratorial pyramid one could see that if ever there was a time for "bipartisanship," this was it. What the conspirators needed was not a man whom people would expect to collaborate with Communists—in 1952 such a man would have had no chance—but a man who convincingly could appear to oppose the Communists; a man who could roll with the mood of the American people; give a little when necessary; protect the conspiratorial gains and advance again when the mood has changed; and—of supreme importance—be able to beat Bob Taft. The penetrating eye of the Master Statesman of All Time fell upon a handsome, crafty, ambitious politician named Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower is the man who hailed the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship almost two years after it was declared subversive; who was a member of the board—along with Communist Alger Hiss—of the Soviet-operated Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and who was a member of that board when on December 12, 1949, it passed a resolution deploring the "pressure" being applied to Acheson for defending Hiss. Eisenhower is also the man who only a few weeks earlier had sent a telegram to the McCarran Committee to vouch for the loyalty of Philip C. Jessup—chairman of the executive committee of the Communist-controlled Institute of Pacific Relations—his friend and boardfellow at the Carnegie Endowment; 19 and who vouched again for Jessup, on March 18, 1950, in a letter to the Senate subcommittee that turned Jessup down as Ambassador-at-Large.20 Eisenhower is the man who chose as the writer of his book Crusade in Europe, a Soviet agent named Joseph Fels Barnes.21 Eisenhower is the man who, as commanding general after World War II, conducted what our soldiers in Europe called Operation Keelhaul, in which millions of Poles and Hungarians and others—including women, children and men who had served in our armies in our uniform—were forcibly shipped in boxcars to Joseph Stalin express prepaid. To be sure, many of the victims committed suicide to avoid being delivered.22 So Eisenhower was just the sort of man who would appeal to a "conservative Republican." For instance, Eisenhower had voted against Dewey, the Republican candidate, in the 186

presidential election of 1944,23 and he was supported by Eleanor Roosevelt and Adlai Stevenson for the Democratic nomination in 1948 24—and Harry Truman still thought of him as a Democrat as late as the fall of 1952 25—all of course powerful qualifications for a Republican candidate. Eisenhower was the head of NATO at the time, so on the evening of May 1, 1952, "conservative Republican anti-Communist" Dulles flew to Paris to have a look at Eisenhower.26 According to Roscoe Drummond and Gaston Coblentz, . . . He paid the visit at the suggestion of General Lucius D. Clay. He had accepted an invitation to address the French National Political Science Institute, which helped to make the call appear casual. His prime purpose was to explore Elsenhower's thinking on foreign policy. . . .27
Dulles liked what he saw. Indeed, he looked highly promising for Dulles's purposes: ". . . Before his appointment," writes Eisenhower, "he and I had held a number of conversations on the international outlook and found ourselves in substantial agreement in our conclusions. . . ." 28 This would seem to mean—in view of what we now know of Dulles's conclusions—that Eisenhower also concluded the United States should be a Socialist department of a world Socialist state. But not necessarily. Dulles conceivably lied to him too. After spending a week with the Politician, the only thing the Actor apparently complained about, according to Marquis Childs, was "that the General did not do his homework. He had no time to read anything during the day because his schedule was too crowded. And at night he ignored the memorandums he was given and spent time on his favorite Westerns." 29 Indeed, says Herman Finer, [Eisenhower] had to be very sedulously briefed in the simplest elements of fact and interpretation, historical and contemporary, and was out of his depth, and overwhelmed almost to enforced passivity by the burden for which he was unprepared in 1952.30 They developed a highly unusual relationship. Says Emmet John Hughes: [Dulles] practiced constant vigilance over all officials having or seeking direct access to the President. Similarly, it 187

appeared to the Secretary a matter of both personal prudence and national policy to discourage the President's direct contact with either other chiefs of state or other officials of the State Department. . . .31
Amazingly, Finer says, Dulles was the only Cabinet member allowed to speak with Eisenhower at the White House without a witness being present! 32 Observe. Instead of Robert Taft, a man respected even by Democrats as preeminently capable in matters of government, Dulles picks a man so inept that he couldn't be trusted to conduct a conversation. On the other hand, when the conversation got around to Hopalong Cassidy—man, look out! "Foster and I worked, as nearly as can be imagined, as one person," says Eisenhower; and the result, says GooldAdams, "was that the President came to see the world through Dulles's own spectacles." In fact, later on, "the relative decline in Eisenhower's mental and physical resilience meant that his own influence on the actual decision became less and Dulles's domination of the situation in Washington became more complete. . . ." 33 ". . . No instances of disagreement can be recalled," says sister Eleanor. The two men "thought so much alike. . . ." 34 "No Secretary of State in American history ever operated under such a prodigious mandate of authority as Eisenhower gave to Dulles," write Drummond and Coblentz.35 Marquis Childs says:

No president in history delegated so much of his constitutional authority over the conduct of foreign policy as Eisenhower was to do. And he found in John Foster Dulles a secretary of state ready and willing to assume this authority. The record of the administration in this department becomes, therefore, largely an account of the Dulles policy and its successes and failures. Dulles consults with Eisenhower, he says, but this has been . . . for approval of decisions already taken and plans already evolved in considerable detail in Dulles's ingenious and tireless mind. . . . 36

And Finer writes that "under the final mandate of the President," Dulles "insisted on the exclusive and absolute command of every policy, every decision, and every action that concerned foreign affairs. He demanded it, and he con188

trived it. . . ." In fact, Dulles "alone was in the driver's seat. . . ." 37 "I cannot make it out," said Winston Churchill. "I am bewildered. It seems that everything is left to Dulles. It appears that the President is no more than a ventriloquist's doll. . . ."38 In July 1952, the Republicans nominated Eisenhower and adopted a Platform. They accused Democratic Administrations since 1932 of having "by a long succession of vicious acts so undermined the foundations of our Republic as to threaten its existence." And the Platform continued, We charge that they have arrogantly deprived our citizens of precious liberties by seizing powers never granted. We charge that they work unceasingly to achieve their goal of national socialism. We charge that they have disrupted internal tranquility by fostering class strife for venal political purposes. We charge that they have choked opportunity and hampered progress by unnecessary and crushing taxation." 39 It is interesting to observe that this perfectly objective bill of particulars, enthusiastically endorsed by Americans as the Republican Platform of 1952, would today be considered "dangerous right-wing extremism," distributed by "clandestine groups," which have "no place in the Republican Party." Indeed, the Platform added, We charge that they have plunged us into war in Korea without the consent of our citizens through their authorized representatives in the Congress, and have carried on that war without will to victory.

And this of course becomes "dangerous extremism," when applied today to exactly the same situation in Vietnam. Let's remember that in a report prepared in 1944—six years before the Korean War—Dulles's Council on Foreign Relations suggested to the State Department how we could get into a war without declaring it. This was the very thing for which the Republican Platform now denounced the Democrats. Indeed, the foreign policy plank was written primarily by Dulles himself, who accused the Democrats of having "abandoned friendly nations such as Latvia, Lithuania, Esthonia, Poland and Czechoslovakia to fend for themselves against the Communist aggression which soon swallowed them"; and, in 189

the case of China, of having "substituted on our Pacific flank a murderous enemy for an ally and friend." Let's remember that it was Dulles's friend and partner Arthur Dean who greatly contributed to Red China's success by sponsoring and defending Soviet spy Field; and that it was Dulles himself who provided the money. Let's remember, too, that in 1946, in his Statement on Soviet-American Relations, written for the Marxist-controlled Federal Council of Churches, Dulles instructed Americans that Soviet Communists have the right "to believe what their reason and conscience may dictate, to reflect their beliefs in human institutions, and by fair means to propagate them"; and that in 1948, at the founding conference of the World Council of Churches, Dulles participated enthusiastically with Czechoslovakian Communist Josef L. Hromadka, and condemned "emotional hatred against the Soviet Union" caused by "the exaggeration of what is true but of minor importance," and then and there Dulles said that everybody wants Communism anyway! Now, in the Republican Platform in 1952—four years later —Dulles made some praiseworthy promises: We shall eliminate from the State Department and from every Federal office all, wherever they may be found, who share responsibility for the needless predicaments and perils in which we find ourselves. . . . In the balanced consideration of our problems, we shall end neglect of the Far East which Stalin has long identified as the road to victory over the West. We shall make it clear that we have no intention to sacrifice the East to gain time for the West. . . . The Government of the United States, under Republican leadership, will repudiate all commitments contained in secret understandings such as those of Yalta which aid Communist enslavements. It will be made clear, on the highest authority of the President and the Congress, that United States policy, as one of its peaceful purposes, looks happily forward to the genuine independence of those captive peoples.
The Republican program he said will mark the end of the negative, futile and immoral policy of 'containment' which abandons countless human beings to a despotism and Godless terrorism which in turn 190

enables the rulers to forge the captives into a weapon for our destruction. . . . We shall see to it that no treaty or agreement with other countries deprives our citizens of the rights guaranteed them by the Federal Constitution. And finally, there was a plank on Communism:
By the Administration's appeasement of communism at home and abroad it has permitted Communists and their fellow travelers to serve in many key agencies and to infiltrate our American life. When such infiltration became notorious through the revelations of Republicans in Congress, the Executive Department stubbornly refused to deal with it openly and vigorously. It raised the false cry of 'red herring' and took other measures to block and discredit investigations. It denied files and information to Congress. It set up boards of its own to keep information secret and to deal lightly with security risks and persons of doubtful loyalty. It only undertook prosecution of the most notorious Communists after public opinion forced action. You will remember that that was exactly what Dulles did about Hiss. And it was exactly what the Institute of Pacific Relations did when it set up its own board to "investigate" Field—which was perfectly all right with Dulles at the Rockefeller Foundation. The Platform concluded:

There are no Communists in the Republican party. We have always recognized communism to be a world conspiracy against freedom and religion. We never compromised with communism and we have fought to expose it and to eliminate it in government and American life.
This was the Republican Platform of 1952. This was what the American people wanted to hear. This was what they overwhelmingly bought that fateful November. This was what Dulles and Eisenhower promised to deliver.


1. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change (Garden City, Doubleday & Company, 1963), p. 28. 2. Dulles press conference, November 29, 1955. See US News & World Report, Vol. 39, No. 24, December 9, 1955, p. 104. 3. New York World Telegram, August 19, 1944. 4. Speech made to American Society of International Law 191

at Wash., D.C., on April 27, 1950. See John Foster Dulles, "New Aspects of American Foreign Policy," Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 566, May 8, 1950, pp. 719-20. 5. Press conference, November 29, 1955. See US News & World Report, Vol. 39, No. 24, December 9, 1955, p. 100. 6. Documents of the United Nations Conference on International Organization (New York, United Nations Information Organizations, 1945), Vol. 1, pp. 133, 135. 7. Joseph Starobin, The San Francisco World Security Conference (New York, New Century Publishers, 1945), pp. 24-25. 8. Ibid., pp. 10-11. 9. See for instance, John Foster Dulles, "The North Atlantic Pact," Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. 15, No. 20, August 1, 1949, p. 617. 10. New Republic, Vol. 128, No. 4, January 26, 1953, p. 8. 11. Committee on Foreign Relations, Senate, Nomination of John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State-Designate, January 15, 1953, Hearing, 83rd Cong., first sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1953), p. 18. 12. See Chapter 7, footnote 10. 13. Arthur Bliss Lane, / Saw Poland Betrayed: An American Ambassador Reports to the American People (Belmont, Massachusetts, American Opinion Reprints, 1961), p. 67. 14. New York Times, September 16, 1949, p. 21. 15. Ibid., September 24, 1949, p. 28. 16. Ibid., September 28, 1949, p. 22. 17. Ibid., September 30, 1949, p. 18. 18. Ibid., October 14, 1949, p. 18. 19. Robert Welch, The Politician (Belmont, Massachusetts, Belmont Publishing Company, 1964), p. 100. 20. Ibid., p. 220. 21. Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Internal Security, Senate, Institute of Pacific Relations, Report No. 2050, 82nd Cong., second sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't Print. Off., 1952), pp. 148, 151. 22. Chesly Manly, The UN Record (Chicago, Henry Regnery Company, 1955), p. 29. 23. Newark Evening News, November 19, 1951. 24. Welch, op. cit., pp. 73-74. 25. Ibid., p. 109. 26. New York Times, May 2, 1952, p. 23. 27. Roscoe Drummond and Gaston Coblentz, Duel At the Brink (Garden City, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1960), p. 30. 28. Eisenhower, op. cit., p. 86. 29. Marquis Childs, Eisenhower: Captive Hero (New York, Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1958), p. 132. 30. Herman Finer, Dulles Over Suez, The Theory and 192

Practice of His Diplomacy, (Chicago, Quadrangle Books, 1964), p. 70. 31. Emmett John Hughes, The Ordeal of Power: A Political Memoir of the Eisenhower Years (New York, Atheneum, 1963), pp. 206-07. 32. Finer, op. cit., p. 72. 33. Richard Goold-Adams, The Time of Power: A Reappraisal of John Foster Duties (London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1962), pp. 70-71. 34. Eleanor Lansing Dulles, John Foster Dulles: The Last "Year (New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1963), pp 30-31. 35. Drummond and Coblentz, op. cit., p. 12. 36. Childs, op. cit., pp. 188, 197. 37. Finer, op. cit., pp. 11, 69. 38. Said to Lord Moran, his doctor, at Bermuda, on December 7, 1953. Life, Vol. 60, No. 17, April 29, 1966, p. 78.

39. New York Times, July 11, 1952, p. 8.


In this first meeting I said first that it was my intention to redeem the pledges of the platform and the campaign. To my astonishment, I discovered that some of the men in the room could not seem to understand the seriousness with which I regarded our platform's provisions, and were amazed by my uncompromising assertion that I was going to do my best to fulfill every promise to which I had been a party.... 1

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Chapter Thirteen: THE WAR IN KOREA (I)
THE FIRST problem Dulles had to deal with of course, as he came into office, was the Korean War. The story we were told about the way the war began, as you will recall, was that the Russians had made a terrible "mistake," that they had finally "outsmarted themselves," that they were "taken by surprise" when their North Korean ally invaded the South; that because they happened at the time to be boycotting the United Nations Security Council, they were unable to do what they desperately wanted to do—veto the entry of American troops as a "UN" army—and that this, for the Russians, was a costly "blunder." This tale, of course, is a complete fraud. The Russians not only knew to the minute when the war would begin, and not only directed the entire operation, but

they were deliberately absent from the Security Council—because if present they would have had to use their veto to conceal the fact that the presence of a UN army of American troops in the Korean War, was in fact the major reason the Socialists began it. This of course, if you haven't heard it, is a startling charge. Is there any proof? From 1945 to 1947, a Czechoslovakian officer named Jan Bukar was a student at the Frunze Military Academy in Moscow, the top Russian military school. He was graduated a lieutenant colonel. And he testifies that an expert from the central committee of the Communist Party came to the 194

Academy and delivered a lecture on the matter of Korea: "It was the plan of the Communists to take Korea at once with China. Then they decided to isolate the China problem, to fight first in China and then only later in Korea." 2 He says that "in 1947, in the class, an officer put a question to a colonel as to whether the situation of the Reds in China is dangerous, and the professor answered, 'Do not have any fear—there are in China our instructors,' which meant that in the Red Chinese Army are our Russian instructors." In September 1953, Lieut. Gen. Samuel E. Anderson, commander of the Fifth Air Force, said that beginning almost with the Chinese entry, in November 1950, entire Soviet Air Force units had been fighting in the war. "General Anderson emphasized that he was referring to Russian pilots, Russian trained, flying Russian-built MIG-15's in formations with other Russians." 3 Then there are the Defense Department documents released in 1954, which "charged that preparations for the war began in 1945 when the Soviet occupation forces moved into North Korea and that the Russians subsequently gave North Korea 'the signal' for the attack on South Korea on June 25, 1950." 4 Throughout the war, we read, there were thousands of Russian tactical troops in North Korea.

Soviet citizens by birth and devout Communists by lifelong training hold most of the top positions and the key second and third level posts in the North Korean regime. Kim II Sung, Premier of North Korea since February, 1946, is an officer of the Soviet Army. Nam Il, the senior Communist delegate at the Panmunjom armistice talks, is a Soviet citizen and also a Soviet army officer. Because of this control by Soviet Citizens of the North Korean Government, it is impossible for that regime to take any course of action that would be unacceptable to Moscow. And it is certain that any line of action ordered from Moscow will be adopted. Indeed, in 1956 we are told of rumors that Nikita S. Khrushchev, the Beast of the Ukraine, has admitted that Stalin "ordered North Korea to attack South Korea. New evidence now available supports these rumors. . . ." 5 So the Russians not only knew exactly when the North Koreans would begin the war, but had been planning it for years, gave the signal and conducted the entire operation. 195

This, as we see, isn't even an intelligent guess—it's an obvious fact. No other conclusion is possible. And therefore they weren't "taken by surprise," at all by boycotting the Security Council when they themselves were starting the war. They did both deliberately—as part of the same strategy. What was that strategy? Well, since they knew to the minute when the war would begin, since they began it themselves, it follows that if they had really wanted to keep us out, they would have tried to do so by using their veto in the Security Council. They certainly wouldn't have been doing any boycotting. But since they were boycotting, since they didn't use their veto, it logically follows, does it not, that they didn't want to keep us out—that in fact they were perfectly delighted to see us come in. Once again, as we see, this is the most obvious thing in the world—even if you aren't lucky enough to be the Master Statesman of All Time—in fact there just isn't anything else we can conclude. But the question arises: Isn't this military strategy slightly crazy? If you are trying to grab a piece of territory, why do you make it possible for your strongest enemy to fight you? Why wouldn't the Russians make it a point to be at the Security Council and use their veto to keep us out? The answer of course is that among the several reasons they started the war, the territory of Korea was the least important. As we have seen, the Marxists were all in favor of the United Nations. Indeed, at the founding meeting, Marxist agent Molotov explained as follows:
An international organization must be created having certain powers to safeguard the interests of the general peace. This organization must have the necessary means for military protection of the security of nations. Only if conditions are created such as will guarantee that no violation of the peace or the threat of such a violation shall go unpunished, and the adoption of necessary punitive measures is not too late, will the organization of security be able to discharge its responsibility for the cause of peace. . . .6 In fact, on December 21, 1946, in an interview with Elliott Roosevelt, Marxist agent Stalin himself said he favored "the immediate creation by the United Nations Security Council 196

of an international police force composed of all the United 7
Nations. . . ."

In a piece published by Dulles's Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and Durable Peace, Marxist agent G. Brom-

ley Oxnam wrote:

. . . Recognition of the principle that nations are interdependent must be protected by an International Police Authority, if those who are loyal to the principle are not to be destroyed by those who insist nations are independent. . . . The majority, once having accepted the principle that power and responsibility shall be coextensive, must possess

the power to enforce that doctrine against those who reject it.8
Dulles himself, in the monthly periodical of the Council on Foreign Relations says still again, soon after the famous San

Francisco Conference: The political inadequacy of the United Nations Organization is obvious. Any political order which eliminates major violence over a long period of time must depend largely on laws defining, concretely and acceptably, what conduct is admissible and what is not. . . . The achievement of such a body of laws calls for a lawmaking process. And to enforce them there is required, in addition to the pressure of public opinion, a judicial system and a police force which will act automatically as the law directs. So far, we haven't been able to arrange this, he complains. And he adds, "We must not accept that condition as permanent. . . ."9 You will remember the confidential document prepared for the State Department a year earlier—in 1944—in which Dulles's CFR suggested that Congress's exclusive power to declare war, delegated by the Constitution, could be overridden simply by a treaty, and "the fact that our participation in such police action [sic] as might be recommended by the international security organization need not necessarily be construed as war." 10 We know that this was exactly what happened in 1950, wasn't it—when the United States entered the Korean "police action." Indeed, we can be sure that it happened—and that it Was wrong—because, as we have just seen, Dulles accused the Democrats of having done it in his 1952 Platform. And finally there is State Department official Robert D. 197

Murphy, named by Dulles to head the Office of UN Affairs, who says '. . . it is unlikely that President Truman would have gone into Korea alone'—that is, without the Security Council approval arranged by the Soviets—because many of his advisers certainly would have considered such unilateral action unwise.11 So the Socialist purpose of this Socialist war wasn't primarily to grab Korea. It was to trick the United States Army into an international police force—by telling Americans it was a "war against Communism." Observe that it isn't necessary to trick Americans into a legitimate war. Now what's the Socialist point to all this? As we have seen, it is, and has always been, the Socialist plan to destroy our government and enslave the United States under a universal Socialist dictatorship. The only trouble was that after the Second World War the United States was, even more than it had always been, the symbol of freedom to a suffering world—the goal and home of freedom all socialized victims longed to reach—owing to its shattering victory over the German, Japanese and Italian Socialists. It was incomparably the strongest nation on earth. For the incomparably inferior Soviet Army, supported by its inevitably incompetent Socialist economy, to have tried anything with the millions of competent and resourceful freedom fighters who compose the United States Army, would have caused another, and probably the final Socialist defeat. It would have because, as Xenophon and Herodotus reported some years ago, slaves cannot beat free men in a fight—which is why there just isn't anything that can withstand the United States Army. So the whole point to the Socialist scheme to turn the United States Army into International Police was simply to neutralize it, to take control of our army from our people, who constitutionally declare war through their employees in the Congress; and to beat the United States Army, which had never happened before, by getting it enmeshed in a war it could not win. Thereby the Socialists hoped to destroy its incomparable reputation as the invincible defender of free men everywhere—and to do this in the Far East, "which Stalin has long identified as the road to victory over the West," as Dulles put it in the 1952 Platform. But a powerful objection at once arises: Isn't the argument ruined, reasonable though it sounds, by the very facts we have just introduced? Since the U.S. Army was so unbeata198

ble, wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that the Communists would not try to trick the United States into a "war on Communism"? Wouldn't they know that our forces would be commanded by General Douglas MacArthur—one of these strange types who believe that words mean what they say? Suppose MacArthur got out of control? Suppose he decided to take them seriously? Perhaps the most important position in the United Nations —Trygve Lie, the first Secretary-General, calls it "the most important assistant secretaryship" 12—is that of undersecretary for Political and Security Council Affairs. The functions of that Department, says the UN itself, are To arrange for the provision to the Military Staff Committee of the services necessary for its due functioning; To assist in the negotiation of military agreements and the application of enforcement measures.13 The Department, in short, runs all the military activities of the United Nations. Since the beginning, eight men have been appointed to head the Department of Political and Security Council Affairs. All were Communists—one from Yugoslavia and the others from Russia.14 "Some observers feel," says G. Edward Griffin, "that eight Communists out of eight appointees constitutes a trend of sorts. . . ."15 Indeed, during the Korean War the job was held by Konstantin E. Zinchenko of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It seems that at the time, comrade Konstantin not only headed a Soviet spy ring, which was stealing secrets from the United States—but it was to him that UN Commander MacArthur was required to send his reports, which as chance would have it, wound up in the hands of the Communists in Korea.16 The situation would have been the same if MacArthur had been made to send these reports directly to the enemy commanders, and save Konstantin postage. The enemy probably knew as much about our military as they did about their own. The charade did not require them to send any of their own plans to MacArthur. And the proviso that a Communist would always head the Department was something arranged at the same London Conference at which Dulles asked Hiss to head the Carnegie Endowment.17 199

So the Socialists were running both sides of the war. It wasn't really a war at all. For instance, when in November 1950, the Socialist (Communist) Chinese entered the war by way of Manchuria, and hurried to the rescue of their North Korean colleagues, General MacArthur naturally ordered Lieutenant General George E. Stratemeyer, commander of our Far East air force, to destroy the six Yalu bridges the Chinese were using. But:

An immediate dispatch came from Secretary Marshall countermanding my order and directing me 'to postpone all bombing of targets within five miles of the Manchurian border.' It seemed to me incredible that protection should be extended to the enemy, not only of the bridges which were the only means they had for moving their men and supplies across that wide natural river barrier into North Korea, but also for a 5-mile-deep area on this side of the Yalu in which to establish a bridgehead. It would be impossible to exaggerate my astonishment, and I at once protested.18
General Mark W. Clark, who later became UN commander in Korea, says it was "beyond my comprehension that we would countenance a situation in which Chinese soldiers killed American youths in organized, formal warfare and yet we would fail to use all the power at our command to protect those Americans." 19 Lieutenant General Edward M. Almond, chief of staff of the UN command in Korea, later testified, says The New York Times, "that the Communists were beaten there in 1950 but that victory was snatched from the anti-Communist forces, apparently with the American State Department calling the signals." He said that "United Nations forces had been held—at times pulled back from much larger advances—to the Thirtyeighth Parallel line. . . ." 20 General Stratemeyer testified that: "We were required to lose the war. We weren't allowed to win it."21 And Vice Admiral C. Turner Joy, senior UN delegate, who negotiated with the Socialists, later said the same thing.22 The military situation was so incredible that General Clark began to fear that perhaps Communists had wormed their way so deeply into our government on both the working and planning levels that they were able to exercise an inordinate degree of 200

power in shaping the course of America in the dangerous postwar era. I could not help wondering and worrying whether we were faced with open enemies across the conference table and hidden enemies who sat with us in our most secret councils.23

Indeed, he says, "I believe that some one had let Red China know that if they did come into the war their mainland would not be attacked." 24 And MacArthur writes: That there was some leak in intelligence was evident to everyone. Walker continually complained to me that his operations were known to the enemy in advance through sources in Washington. . . . They knew they could swarm down across the Yalu River without having to worry about bombers hitting their Manchurian supply lines.25 He cites an official leaflet published in China by Socialist General Lin Piao, who writes: "I would never have made the attack and risked my men and military equipment if I had not been assured that Washington would restrain General MacArthur from taking adequate retaliatory measures against my lines of supply and communication." You will remember that it was Dean Rusk—the admirer of Mao Tse-tung—who persuaded Truman to forbid MacArthur to bomb the bridges. Now let us look at the Socialist schedule. In June 1949, the United States withdrew the last of its troops from South Korea. It did so, Dulles complains, "although the Red armies of the North were still vastly superior in strength to the forces of the Republic of Korea in the South." When this happened, the South Koreans begged us for arms, and were backed by the American military observers on the scene. ". . . The money was available," Dulles complains, "but the request was denied on the ground that the Administration had given Korea a low priority rating and that it was accordingly not eligible for the equipment which it sought." And on January 12, 1950, Secretary of State Acheson defined our Far Eastern "defense perimeter," and left out South Korea and Formosa, saying that "it must be clear that no person can guarantee these areas against military attack." Dulles complains that Acheson "thus denied the hope of 201

the Republic of South Korea that, in order to deter aggression, he should indicate that if South Korea were invaded, we would come to its help." "Conservative Republican anti-Communist" Dulles was doing all this complaining—which was all perfectly true— during the "anti-Communist" election campaign of 1952,26 but in May of 1950, as you will recall, friend Dean had made him an important member of his Department of State, and in June, Dulles was in Korea himself—as Acheson's personal representative. "Conservative Republican anti-Communist" Dulles told the Korean legislature that the United States would defend Korea if she were attacked, thus reversing Acheson's policy. In fact, he took a trip from Seoul to the demarcation line between North and South, and was perfectly delighted with what he saw. Although the South Koreans suffered indeed, says MacArthur, from an "inferiority in both troop strength and material" in comparison with the Socialists in the North, as Dulles would say in 1952, he now "noted that the South Korean forces appeared quite ready if any attack should come from north of the border." 27 And a week later, on June 25, Moscow gave the signal and the Socialists attacked—as chance would have it. Truman's "advisers"—presumably including Rusk—advised him to send in American troops, and taking the absent Russians "by surprise," the Security Council approved. On October 7, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for "a unified, independent, and democratic Government in a sovereign state of Korea." Two days later, in a statement made to the UN Political and Security Committee, "conservative Republican anti-Communist" Dulles strongly urged adoption of the United States plan to pool armed forces.28 On October 13, in another statement to the same Committee, he said,

I hope that the representatives will never forget in the course of this discussion the tremendous significance of creating a collective force, drawn not just from the great powers but also from the small powers, so that it represents all of our membership, and subjecting that force, which is drawn from the great, as well as the small, to the common, representative, moral judgments that are reflected by the United Nations. . . .29 (Italics added)

And on November 3, 1950, the General Assembly passed 202

the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, calling on each member government to organize, train and equip armed forces to be available for prompt use as UN units. It also set up a new "Peace Observation Commission" to investigate disputes, and a "Collective Measures Committee" to report on steps to maintain "peace," including the use of armed force. Indeed, "conservative Republican anti-Communist" State Department official John Foster Dulles was still at it on February 2, 1951, when he said in Tokyo that the Security Council has "the duty to create an international force to deter aggression. . . ." So we can expect gradually . . . the bringing into being of an adequate international force, subject to direction by the United Nations. Until then, the deterrent to international robbery by large-scale violence resides in the commitment of national power to regional and collective security arrangements such as are authorized by the United Nations Charter.30

Which as you will remember is nothing else but stage two of the plan for world socialization presented in 1936 by the Communist International.31 In April 1951, the boys decided to fire MacArthur. It seems that for some reason the general had been concealing his plans from comrade Zinchenko and still suffered from the archaic notion that an America at war should fight to win. Conceivably the gang was afraid he might secretly execute another Inchon landing, the extraordinary operation that completely routed the North Koreans and caused the Chinese to enter the war. You will remember that it was Dean Rusk—Dulles's "good friend"—who wrote the message that did the firing. A few weeks later, with MacArthur safely out of the way, the Socialists launched their last offensive. Unfortunately for the cause of "world peace," however, the UN ground forces were then commanded by General James A. Van Fleet, who later described our counter-offensive for the Senate Armed Services Committee: We had the Communist armies on the run. They were hurt badly, out of supplies, completely out of hand or control. They were in a panic, and were doing their best to fall as far back as possible; and we stopped by order, did not pursue to finish the enemy.32 203

Observe that even though the UN prevented their defeat, the Socialists were still unable to beat the U.S. Army. Indeed, the Socialist military situation was now so bad that Soviet UN representative Jacob Malik proposed "peace talks" to save it.33 And sure enough, the same nation that only six years before had demanded "unconditional surrender" from Germany and Japan, now sat down with the Socialist thugs. On and on they droned—while American soldiers were being killed—these "peace talks" proposed by the Socialists to prevent their own defeat. When Dulles came into office as Secretary of State, General Van Fleet, for instance, was telling the Senate that "the only solution is a military victory in Korea; that anything short of that would be a defeat. . . ." 34 The point was: Now, the whole sentiment out in the Far Pacific is along the lines of the Communist propaganda—they say they are the victors, that we are the defeated, that we are the imperialist invaders to destroy liberty in China; that they have stopped us by defending their homeland. That is the Communist line of propaganda, and it keeps discrediting us. And the fact that we are stopped is somewhat of an admission that we cannot do any better, so that our allies wonder about this American might and prestige, and can they count on us—that they are tottering, and what we need to re-establish American might and prestige, not only in the Pacific but throughout the world, is a military victory to show that we are supreme and that the Communist arms are nothing.35 He explained that "we can annihilate them if we want to," because "Korea is so much more favorable a battleground for us . . ." and he added that the war "is costing the Chinese Reds much more than it is costing us. They never expected such a drain; they have to get out of it. It is the worst mistake they could possibly have made; and going back one link farther in the chain, it is the greatest mistake the Kremlin ever made." Indeed, said Van Fleet, the Socialists "have lost the war in Korea and they know it. ... One can only wonder how the Kremlin hopes to save any kind of face in this disaster, unless we Americans are foolish enough to let the Russians off the spot." 38 The New York Times was reporting: 204

Maintaining such a large front-line Communist army, keeping it supplied with ammunition and food, is an enormous drain on the economy of China. It is possible that this cost alone, without major defeats in the field, is enough to make it almost mandatory for the Communists to end the war in Korea.37

And Lindesay Parrott was saying in the same place that "Communist China, after eighteen months of costly warfare in Korea, may be approaching exhaustion of its available military potential, some well-informed Japanese sources are inclined to believe." In fact almost two years earlier, General MacArthur had issued a routine communique describing Red China's innumerable, basic military weaknesses, and concluding that: [the enemy] must by now be painfully aware that a decision of the United Nations to depart from its tolerant effort to contain the war to the area of Korea, through an expansion of our military operations to his coastal areas and interior bases, would doom Red China to the risk of imminent military collapse.. . .38
It was a situation made to order for a conservative Republican anti-Communist—especially one who had accused the Democrats of fighting the war without "will to victory." We don't know who gets the credit, but during the campaign, as you will recall, Eisenhower brilliantly performed the electrifying line, "I shall go to Korea." He didn't say what he was going to do there, or why just going to Korea would be such a big deal, but the implication of course was that since Eisenhower is naturally semi-divine, his presence alone would solve the problem. Eisenhower did go to Korea. And when he arrived, says Robert Murphy, who was then General Clark's political commissar:

he said his advisers had reached much the same conclusion about Korea as the Truman administration had reached in the summer of 1951. No all-out attempt would be made to expel the Red Chinese from Korea. An armistice along the current battle lines would be acceptable. We were instructed to push hard for a settlement. . . .39 Indeed, says Murphy, the American negotiators were "distinctly at a disadvantage," because the Socialists were aware of their "anxiety to conclude negotiations. . . ." 205

You will remember that according to the testimony of our military leaders, the Socialists alone had something to worry about. In April 1953, we learn that the boys are willing not only to accept a divided Korea—that is, defeat—but that "What the Administration is striving for, it is understood, is a Korea that is really neutralized." 40 So the Administration is trying not only to guarantee a Communist North Korea—it is trying to end South Korea's career as our staunch ally and cut it adrift near the Communist maw. "The Washington correspondent of the newspaper Le Monde stated as a fact that the published information about the plan had come from Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, while another newspaper, France-Presse, said it was understood to have originated with Mr. Dulles. . . ." 41 And on July 27, 1953, Dulles finally arranged just such an armistice. General Clark, who signed it, writes that he "gained the unenviable distinction of being the first United States Army commander in history to sign an armistice without victory." 42 It is revealing to recall Korean opinion of Dulles's truce: Thousands upon thousands of Seoul's citizens paraded today through the streets of this war-wrecked city shouting their determination to march to the north to unify their country. Clashes with United States Military Police were few, but when they occurred they were heartrending. Little girls, sobbing and with tears running down their cheeks, tried to force their way through the police lines in the face of rifle butts, crying over and over again in Korean, 'You are killing our country. Why are you killing our country?' 43 You will remember that the South Koreans were our allies. Throughout South Korea, wild demonstrations against an armistice continued. Demonstrators staged the fifth day of noisy protests in Seoul today. Several hundred South Korean war veterans again paraded through the streets, led by a loudspeaker-equipped automobile that blared slogans opposing an armistice and demanding unification of Korea. In Pusan a group of veterans, all amputees, sat down in front of the United States Embassy building yesterday awaiting an answer to an appeal addressed to General Eisenhower to reject any truce that would leave Chinese forces on Korean soil. 206

Defying a police ban on demonstrations at United Nations installations, several hundred schoolgirls again marched to correspondents' billets in Seoul, where they chanted, wept and screamed slogans against the proposed truce. . . .44
Now what were the details of the Dulles truce? Well, in the first place, a political conference was to be held to arrange permanent peace terms, and there were preliminary talks to discuss the agenda. They broke up on December 12, however, when the chief UN negotiator abruptly walked out—leaving a divided Korea, the division guarded by about 50,000 American troops today. Who was this chief of the UN delegation? On September 15, we learn that "conservative Republican anti-Communist" John Foster Dulles has appointed one Arthur H. Dean.45 So the McCarran Committee, after a year of hearings, has just revealed that Arthur H. Dean is a close associate of Soviet spy Freddie Field's, and a director of the Institute of Pacific Relations, which is not only a department of Soviet intelligence, but was instrumental in delivering China to Mao —and Dulles names him to negotiate with the very people he has brought to power. And they say John Foster Dulles had no sense of humor! Another interesting aspect of Dulles's truce was the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission, composed of neutral Switzerland and Sweden, Socialist India, Socialist Poland and Socialist Czechoslovakia, which decided matters by majority vote! The Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission was supposed to ensure that the armistice was observed throughout Korea, but the Socialists refused to let the Commission in, so the Poles and Czechs managed to keep busy, spying, in the South. On August 12, 1955, we read that our troops—Americans —are setting up heavy machine guns to protect the Reds— that's right—and that one South Korean has already been killed.46 On the next day, 3,000 South Koreans rush the compound housing the Reds, trying to crash the gates with trucks—and are repelled by American tear gas and American gunfire.47 This must be true—since, as you see, it appeared in The New York Times. So let's do some addition: Five years earlier, we entered the war allegedly to defend 207

Korea against the Socialists (Communists). We found a grateful people and a loyal ally. Five years have passed, during which the ineffectual South Korean Army has become a firstclass anti-Socialist force, and Acheson has at least pretended to be fighting the Reds. And now Acheson's good friend Dulles is running the show, and no longer sees the need even for pretending. He is now openly defending these Socialist spies. "Eight United States Army vehicles were stoned by Korean terrorists here today," says a story from Inchon, "and one American officer was seriously injured. . . . The Koreans were demonstrating against the presence in South Korea of Czech and Polish members of the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission." 48 And ten days later, in Seoul: "Three thousand Korean housewives and schoolgirls today marched past the United States Embassy as part of continuing demonstrations against Communist truce inspectors. They shouted 'Communist spies get out of Korea' and carried banners bearing the same slogan. . . ." 49

But perhaps the most characteristic twist of all came at exactly this same time at a Dulles press conference:
Asked how the United States can justify insisting that the South Koreans be patient after a year and a half when the Communist members of those teams are spying on South Korean defenses and yet not letting them check the build up in North Korea and whether if that were happening in the United States the Americans would be very patient, the Secretary replied: "I hope we would be patient, yes, because I don't think you can build a world of peace and order where in a sense people take the law into their own hands. . . ." 50 Observe. If someone somehow forced us into an agreement which admitted Communists into the United States—and if the Communists not only broke the agreement but openly spied on our military installations—what "conservative Republican anti-Communist" John Foster Dulles would be worried about wouldn't be how to get out of the agreement and rid of the Reds, but that real Americans might protest. He says that what Americans should do is simply "be patient." He complains that to do whatever you can to save yourself, when a thug in an alley has a gun in your back, is "to take the law in your own hands." 208

And in July 1955, he says the United States will treat any attempt by the Republic of Korea to free its northern half as "aggression," and will oppose it.51 Says Chesley Manly:

Throughout Asia ... the cease-fire agreement, based upon terms acceptable to the Communists but not to South Korea, the victim of aggression, was regarded as a defeat for the United States. In the UN General Assembly, Moscow's Andrei Vishinsky jeered at the United States for accepting the armistice. He said it was evidence of the 'fiasco' of the 52 Eisenhower administration's 'dynamic new foreign policy.' Which of course it was. And General MacArthur writes:
Such abandonment of principles by the United Nations, in whose solemn declaration the peoples of Asia had placed such trust and faith, was a catastrophic blow to the hopes of the free world. Its disastrous consequences were reflected throughout Asia. Red China promptly was accepted as the military colossus of the East. Korea was left ravished and divided. Indochina was partitioned by the sword. Tibet was taken almost on demand. Other Asian nations began to tremble toward neutralism. ... It confirmed Red control of continental China. ... It signalized the artificial restraint of our forces in Korea. ... All of this destroyed Oriental faith in Western fortitude, in Western determination, and in Western interest in Asia. This largely cost the free world its psychological gains which were the result of our World War II victory in the Far East.53

Indeed, all of this was so obvious that Dulles himself, in a favorite technique, agreed in a speech in New York on March 21, 1955, that the Chinese Socialists "entered the Korean war and gained a victory which gave them control of Northern Korea" 54—as if he and his truce had nothing to do with it. But by far the most revealing angle of Dulles's truce is the "fact that in certain respects the truce terms were less severe than had been offered originally by the Truman administration," writes Robert J. Donovan. There was ". . . widespread comment at the time that the reason the terms were acceptable to Congress now was that they were being presented by Eisenhower rather than by Truman and that the very prospect of a Republican uproar had deterred Truman from ever agreeing to such conditions. . . ." 55 209

Observe. Observe well. The truce we got from Dulles was even worse than the truce we might have gotten from Acheson. What prevented Acheson from arranging a truce so bad that it would have caused an uproar, was our sure knowledge, by this time, of what he really was. But what allowed Dulles's even worse terms to be approved, was our complete ignorance about what Dulles really was. Once again we see that the most valuable tool in Dulles's lifelong work for Marxian Socialism was his reputation—our idea that he was a "conservative Republican anti-Communist." Now of course, Socialist China, as we have seen, might well have collapsed if forced to continue fighting; but couldn't it be that Dulles arranged our defeat simply to keep the Russians out? Can't we argue that he had no choice, that he really was a conservative Republican anti-Communist but that he had to do it to "protect world peace?" Couldn't it be that an attempt to win in Korea would have caused "another world war," the "destruction of mankind" and the "incineration of the earth?" No. There was simply no chance at all that Russia could have been dragged into a general war. This was the year, remember, in which the Socialists had to worry about the East German workers who rose against them. Indeed, we are talking here about the same Socialist Russia which only a few years before had finished executing the tens of thousands of Ukrainians who in 1941 hailed the invading German Army—headed by Hitler—as liberators.

General Clark says: [I] was convinced personally that World War III would be more likely to result eventually from a weaker policy than a stronger one in Korea. I was convinced that in the long run we would save American lives by making sacrifices for victory in Korea.56 And General MacArthur writes: . . . Even had Russia desired to actively intervene, she would have found it militarily almost impossible to do so. Her position in Siberia was of necessity defensive and highly vulnerable because of her limited and tenuous supply line. This consisted of a single railroad system which could be cut by air interdiction almost at will. There was little local supply in eastern Siberia, and its military needs depended entirely upon this sole transportation system. At 210

no place in the world would she have been weaker for battle. At this time, while we had the atomic bomb, she had not yet developed its manufacture. There was never serious danger of active Soviet intervention. . . .57
So to sum it all up, the Socialists started the Korean War to get our invincible army under Socialist control and to destroy our prestige; and then desperately had to stop it—and "conservative Republican anti-Communist" John Foster Dulles delivered every single Socialist goal. In fact there is more. CHAPTER THIRTEEN: THE WAR IN KOREA (I)

1. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change (Garden City, Doubleday & Company, 1963), pp. 194-95. 2. Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Reps., Soviet Schedule for War, 1955, 83rd Cong., first sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1953), p. 1729. 3. New York Times, September 19, 1953, p. 1. 4. Ibid., May 16, 1954, p. 10. 5. Ibid., June 17, 1956, p. 25. 6. Documents of the United Nations Conference on International Organization (New York, United Nations Information Organizations, 1945), Vol. 1, pp. 134-35. 7. Joseph Stalin, For Peaceful Coexistence, (New York, International Publishers), p. 29. Quoted in The Truth About the United Nations, The Speeches, Findings and Resolutions of the Congress of Freedom, Inc., San Francisco, April 1955, by Claude Bunzel, "Creeping Totalitarianism," p. 16. 8. Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and Durable Peace, A Righteous Faith For a Just and Durable Peace, 1942, pp. 73-74. Quoted by Bunzel, op. cit., p. 16. 9. John Foster Dulles, "The General Assembly," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 24, No. 1, October, 1945, pp. 2-3, 6-7. 10. See pp. 35, 36 of text. 11. Robert Murphy, Diplomat Among Warriors (Garden City, Doubleday & Company, 1964), pp. 360-61. 12. Trygve Lie, In the Cause of Peace: Seven Years with the United Nations (New York, The Macmillan Company, 1954), p. 45. 13. Organization of the Secretariat, p. 19. Quoted by Samuel L. Blumenfeld, The Review of the News, December 14, 1966, pp. 22-23. 14. United Nations Yearbook, published annually in New York by Columbia University Press in cooperation with the United Nations. Also, Statesman's Yearbook, published annually in New York by St. Martin's Press, and Facts on 211

File: World News Digest, New York. Cited by G. Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master, A Second Look at the United Nations (Boston, Western Islands, 1964), p. 86. See also Lie, op. cit., p. 45. 15. Griffin, op. cit., p. 86. 16. Samuel L. Blumenfeld, The Review of the News, September 28, 1966. 17. Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Internal Security, Senate, Bang-Jensen report, 87th Cong., first sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1961). 18. Douglas MacArthur, Reminisences (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1964), p. 368. 19. Mark W. Clark, From the Danube to the Yalu (New York, Harper & Bros., 1954), p. 315. 20. New York Times, November 24, 1954, p. 9. 21. Ibid., August 26, 1954, p. 13. 22. Ibid., December 30, 1954, p. 4. 23. Clark, op. cit., p. 11. 24. New York Times, April 28, 1956, p. 37. 25. MacArthur, op. cit., p. 375. 26. Dulles speech before Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco, September 17, 1952. U.S. News & World Report, Vol. 33, No. 15, October 10, 1952, pp. 102-03. 27. MacArthur, op. cit., p. 324. 28. John Foster Dulles, "Uniting For Peace," Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 23, No. 590, October 23, 1950, pp. 651-55. 29. Ibid., Vol. 23, No. 591, October 30, 1950, pp. 690-91. 30. From speech made to American-Japan Society. Ibid., Vol 24, No. 606, February 12, 1951, p. 253. 31. See p. 23 of text. 32. New York Times, March 23, 1953, p. 1; and February 10, 1953, p. 2. 33. See Van Fleet testimony before House Armed Services Committee, US News & World Report, Vol. 34, No. 11, March 13, 1953, p. 104. 34. Ibid., pp. 101, 103. See also New York Times, March 5, 1953, p. 1, 3. 35. General James A. Van Fleet, "The Truth About Korea From a Man Now Free to Speak," Life, Vol. 34, No. 19 May 11, 1953, pp. 127, 142. 36. New York Times, June 5, 1953, p. 2. 37. MacArthur, op. cit., p. 388. 38. Murphy, op. cit., p. 357. 39. New York Times, April 9, 1953, p. 6. 40. Ibid., April 11, 1953, p. 4. 41. Clark, op. cit., p. 1. 42. New York Times, June 10, 1953, pp. 1, 3. 43. Ibid., June 13, 1953, p. 1. 44. Ibid., September 16,1953, p. 16. 212

45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

Ibid., August 12, 1955, p. 1. Ibid., August 13, 1955, p. 1. Ibid., August 18, 1955, p. 3. Ibid., August 28, 1955, p. 56. Ibid., August 11, 1955, p. 2. L. Brent Bozell, "National Trends," National Review,

January 11, 1956, p. 14. 51. Chesly Manly. The UN Record (Chicago, Henry Reg-

nery Company, 1955), p. 56.
52. MacArthur, op. cit., p. 390. 53. Manly, op. cit., p. 56. 54. Robert J. Donovan, Eisenhower: The Inside Story (New

York, Harper & Bros., 1956), p. 126. 55. Clark, op. cit., pp. 315-16. 56. MacArthur, op. cit., p. 392.


. . . 'Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. . . ."

from the base of the Statue of Liberty, by Emma Lazarus

Chapter Fourteen: THE WAR IN KOREA (II)
WE COME now to a tale so fantastic, so incredible, that it exceeds in fantasticality even the incredible tales that have come before. It seems that early in the Korean War our army dropped a million leaflets over enemy lines, promising political asylum to enemy soldiers who surrendered, and armies of Koreans and Chinese did so, waving the leaflets over their heads. These men were not Communists. They weren't real enemies. Like all subjects of a Communist state, they were slaves, impressed into uniform by a cause they despised. And now they were eagerly coming into our lines, remembering the enormous store of good will created by America as China's loyal ally during World War II, and relying on the solemn word of the United States. This the Socialists didn't like. All those thousands of deserters were making Socialism look bad. Throughout the Orient, people were concluding that Mighty Red China was a paper lizard after all. So at the "peace negotiations" the Socialists demanded that the Chinese and Koreans who were revelling in the luxury of American prison camps be forcibly returned to the collective paradise. ". . . Wanting to effect a truce as quickly as possible," writes Robert Murphy, "the UN Command did its utmost to persuade Chinese prisoners to return home. Assurances of immunity were circulated in all of our prison camps, and a poll was taken of the Chinese prisoners on April 10, 1952 in the hope that most of the men would express willingness to go back. But to the dismay of the UN Command, sixteen 214

thousand of the twenty thousand Chinese prisoners voted against repatriation...."1 Observe. The United Nations "did its utmost" to get the men to return to Communism. The United Nations was "dismayed" when they refused. We shall see more of Murphy in another adventure. Notice that he isn't surprised or upset by the fact that the UN is trying to send twenty thousand men back to slavery, where they will be forced to fight us again—or simply killed. He doesn't even wonder about it. Aside from those million leaflets, says Murphy, and something he calls "humanitarian sentiment," there was still another reason why the UN couldn't forcibly deliver these men to the Socialists:
. . . The United States Army had already had an experience of that sort when thousands of Russian prisoners, who had been captured by the Germans and then freed by American forces, fought desperately against repatriation when Red Army units came to get them. The Soviet soldiers who did not want to go home barricaded themselves in camp dormitories, in schools, and even in churches. Authorities in Washington feared that those painful scenes in Germany might be repeated in Korea if the UN Command tried to return Chinese prisoners without regard for their wishes. . . .2 No, Murph, that's not what they were worried about at all. They weren't afraid the scenes might be repeated—but that they might be remembered. They were afraid that that sordid boil again might break—to reveal what you conveniently omit: that Operation Keelhaul was conducted under Eisenhower's command. On December 3, 1952, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution proposed by India's V.K. Krishna Menon, and designed to arrange forced repatriation. Menon told the Political Committee that he was trying to give the Chinese Reds everything they said they wanted. "We mean they shall return," he said of the prisoners of war.3 And the United States supported the Indian resolution. This was the incredible situation confronting "conservative Republican anti-Communist" John Foster Dulles as he came into office in January 1953. On May 7, 1953, the Socialists demanded among other things, that all men refusing repatriation be turned over to a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission, consisting of neu215

trals Sweden and Switzerland, and Socialist Poland, Czechoslovakia and India, which would be the chairman and provide the police. It was NNRC which later became the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission, which was to busy itself spying in South Korea. According to the Socialist scheme, NNRC could hold the prisoners for as long as four months, during which Communist "explainers" could see them and "explain"—explain why they should return to Socialist slavery. If after that time, there were still prisoners in the custody of the Commission, said the Socialists, they would be handed to a political conference which would arrange their "disposition." You will remember that it was "our" side at the preparatory talks for this conference, that Arthur H. Dean was named to head. Dulles bought it. He bought it all. On May 13, we made a "counter-proposal" that the Commission could get the Chinese, but that the Koreans would be released as civilians on the day of the armistice, free to settle wherever they wished, either in North or South Korea. General Clark also proposed fool-proof procedures by which a prisoner could get asylum, where the Socialists were vague, and he says President Rhee of South Korea liked the idea. But on May 23, says Clark, he got orders from Washington:

... I was instructed to agree to turn over to the Neutral Repatriation Commission all Korean as well as Chinese nonrepatriates—a point that made many in the ROK Government feel that we had betrayed them. In addition, I was instructed to agree to the Communist demand that all disputes within the Repatriation Commission would be decided by a majority vote rather than by unanimous vote. This gave the Communists an edge since India, although avowedly neutral, recognized and was sympathetic to Red China.4 It is important to remember again that the men in question were not really enemy soldiers. They had been impressed into uniform by a regime they hated, deserted as soon as they could, and had come into our lines waving our leaflets, under the impression that they had finally reached freedom—and they were relying on the word of the United States.

Two days later, on May 25, pursuant to orders, Clark called on Rhee at 10:00 a.m.—The timing of our call was fixed by Washington—an hour before General Harrison was to hand our proposal to Nam Il, his red counterpart, at Panmunjom. 216

After Clark outlined the new American position on the truce, South Korean foreign minister Pyun remarked that it was inconceivable to him how we could notify the ROK Government of our new and different stand at the very moment we were negotiating it with the Communists, which I had to admit to myself was a fairly valid objection for him to make.
In fact, Pyun warned Clark "that to permit the Commu-

nists to have access to the anti-communist POWs in Korea
for a long period was tantamount to forceful repatriation.

'Many of the prisoners will commit suicide,' he warned, and, as a matter of fact, some did." 5
And on June 8, the two sides signed the agreement on the prisoner issue, the Socialists having agreed with the "Ameri-

can plan." They agreed with the "American plan," of course, since it was the same plan they themselves had proposed.6
President Rhee thought the thing over. It was quite a mess.

The United Nations had boldly entered the war promising
that it would unify Korea and free it of Communists; and

now it was proposing not only that the country be divided, as the Communists demanded, but that thousands of his countrymen be returned to Communist slavery. He also may have remembered—there is no way of knowing—that Eisenhower was of course a specialist in forced repatriation.
Rhee ordered the South Koreans guarding the prison

camps to open them, and beginning on June 18, more than 27,000 anti-Communist North Korean prisoners escaped and vanished. Writes General Clark: There were many stories of the reception the South Korean people gave the prisoners, stories that supported the idea that although the ROKs ordered demonstrations, the
demonstrators more often than not believed in the slogans

they were instructed to chant. The South Koreans welcomed the prisoners as heroes, brought out the best in
food, drink and tobacco. Even South Koreans who disa-

greed with Rhee and were fearful of the consequences expressed great pride in the daring of the release. All signs indicated Rhee reached a new high of popularity among his people the day of the big release.7 That Rhee saved his countrymen from further horrors is suggested, perhaps accidentally, by Robert Murphy, who gives the impression that the missing prisoners had been "willing to be repatriated," before Rhee released them and 217

their whereabouts "became a mystery. Those camps had held prisoners who were ready for repatriation to North Korea, where their families and homes were located. . . ." 8 (Italics added) Murphy doesn't explain why, if the prisoners were so hot to get repatriated, their whereabouts became a mystery. And The New York Times explains as follows: The Prisoner of War Command said order had been restored in all camps and new troops—presumably American —were standing by in case of new revolts among the men who face return to their former masters or long continued captivity after an armistice. 9 (Italics added) Now how would you expect a "conservative Republican anti-Communist" like Dulles to handle all this? President Eisenhower today dispatched to President Syngman Rhee of the Korean Republic a secret but sharply worded message demanding the immediate recapture of thousands of anti-Communist North Korean prisoners of war set free by South Korean guards in violation of United Nations agreements.10 Indeed, says Goold-Adams, Dulles acted "with great determination in using American troops to round up the released prisoners—who had in any case nowhere to go. . . ."11 In fact: ". . . The United States troops, taking over, had to use tear gas and rifle-fire, and nine of the prisoners were killed. . . ." 12 We read of actual gun battles between anti-Communist prisoners and American troops, in which still more of the prisoners were actually killed.13 So as we see, Dulles is forcibly trying to return people to the Communist hell. He is using American troops to kill people whose only motive is to escape from slavery. He is in fact repeating Operation Keelhaul. You will remember my warning that it just isn't possible to believe the facts. Then there was Dulles's arrangement for the more than twenty thousand prisoners Rhee did not release. We read that Chinese prisoners being delivered to the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission have ripped off their identification cards and refuse to give their names to their Indian guards, because in addition to the use of promises and 218

exhaustion, the Socialists are threatening their relatives and friends who remain in China.14 We read:

A week from today, Communist agents are scheduled to enter the compounds to try to talk the prisoners into reversing their opposition to repatriation. However, the antiRed prisoners already have raised banners inside their new compounds stating they would 'resist to the death' return to communism. Other signs threaten that the captives will oppose even meeting the Communist representatives 'at the cost of our lives.'15 A few days later, we read of a letter distributed to the prisoners by NNRC, of which American officers say that "the over-all influence is unmistakably one of emphasis on the desirability of repatriation rather than on the principle of free choice." 16 On the next day, we learn of the rules established by NNRC to govern the "explanation" sessions, and that a UN Command spokesman says, "The commission bought everything the Communists wanted." The Times explains:

Among important regulations formally asked for by the Communists and formally opposed by the United Nations Command that have been officially promulgated are, first, that a prisoner's attendance at the explanation sessions shall be mandatory and, second, that talks with individuals shall be permitted. The United Nations Command had requested that the prisoners remain in groups of at least twenty-five to avoid intimidation by Communist personnel, and had especially opposed any system that would permit the 'explainers' to talk to single prisoners.17 And a day later, Indian guards killed two Chinese antiCommunists during an attempted mass breakout. The riot started when the anti-Communists demanded the Indians return a man who was being sent to the hospital after trying to commit suicide with a razor blade.18 We are told that while the Communists are allowed to watch the transfer of anti-Communist prisoners who allegedly have changed their minds about returning to slavery, the UN is not; 19 and that India's custodial troops are authorized to use force to move prisoners from the compounds to the explanation sites.20 For instance: Three Indians were assigned to each prisoner. One on 219

each side clamped his arms in a way that would produce pain if the man struggled. The third Indian followed the prisoner and held his belt firmly to prevent lunges forward at the explainer. From time to time an Indian sergeant would enter tents containing unusually violent prisoners to give reassuring pats on the back and words of assurance. . . . The drama during the day was intense as man after man came before his former officers. Although the Indians treated the prisoners with utmost consideration and obvious kindness, they were forced under their orders to drag many of the captives into the explanation tents. . . .21

Now ask yourself: What would you imagine Asians were thinking about all this? Would you expect them ever again to take the word of the United States?
Would you take it? If you had escaped from Communist slavery, would you now present yourself happily to the United States, if you

knew the United States might forcibly return you—to certain, punishment and possible death? Would you bother trying to escape at all? Would you continue resisting the criminals who rule the people of China or Russia or Lithuania and so on, if you thought that the United States, supposed to be your symbol of hope, was actually cooperating with the criminals to ensure your defeat? You will remember that only a year earlier, in the 1952 Republican Platform, Dulles recorded his awareness that Stalin had long identified the Far East "as the road to victory over the West." And still there is more. It seems that in violation of the armistice agreement, the Communists decided to keep some of our men. Indeed, writes General Clark, "we had solid evidence after all the returns were in from Big Switch that the Communists still held 3,404 men prisoner, including 944 Americans," 22 Observe that we are talking now of a group composed not only of allies who have fought at our side. Now we are talking about almost a thousand of our own men. John H. Noble, who at the time was a prisoner in a Socialist concentration camp, writes:
From other prisoners I heard some startling news. Laborers coming to Vorkuta from camps in Taishet, and Irkutsk and Omsk in Siberia, and Magadan in the Far East told 220

me there were American G.I.'s and officers and South Korean soldiers working as slaves in their camps. They had been taken prisoners by the Reds during the Korean War and shipped to the Soviet Union.23 American soldiers, forced to work as Socialist slaves in a Socialist concentration camp—in violation of a solemn agreement! It is important to describe what sort of people these Socialists are. Writes General Clark:

There was evidence that the Communists used POWs as human guinea pigs for medical experiments. One returned doctor said he was forced to use inadequate quantities of drugs or take measures of which he disapproved. Some prisoners said chicken livers and other parts of animals were implanted beneath the skin of sick prisoners as experiments in healing techniques.24
This as you will recall was also a specialty of the Nazis. A liberated veteran describes the murder of 800 helpless wounded in 1950: "Then they bayonetted them. The wounded were screaming. They couldn't do anything." 25 The atrocity victims number almost 30,000, we read. Roger M. Kyes, Deputy Secretary of Defense, wrote to the State Department that "The prisoners were shot down in cold blood, were burned alive in prison buildings, were beaten to death—all in total disregard of the rules and customs of war or of an elementary sense of common decency." In a Defense Department report, Sergeant Glenn J. Oliver tells what happened at prison camp 5: "Men in poor condition were placed outdoors with little or no clothing and eaten by flies and worms. I saw at least fifteen men given injections of an unknown type of fluid and they would die within five minutes." 26 Now what did "conservative Republican anti-Communist" John Foster Dulles do about the fact that almost a thousand of our men were being held as slaves, under these conditions —in Russia, by Russians? Well, he sent some "stiff notes of sharp protest," of course,27 that goes without saying—aside from which, he did absolutely nothing. He didn't do a thing. Conceivably he was too busy getting ready for the Summit Conference—with the Russians; or removing "barriers to trade"—with the Russians; or encouraging "cultural exchange"—with the Russians. 221

You will remember that only a few years before—in 1947—G. Bromley Oxnam mailed out 22,000 copies of Dulles's Statement on Soviet-American Relations, along with a book by Soviet agent Jerome Davis—who openly defends the concentration camps in Russia. Now ask yourself: What would you imagine were the thoughts of Orientals—and Poles, Lithuanians, Hungarians and Czechs—longing for help in the fight for freedom, when they realized that the United States had not only betrayed a loyal ally—but would even cooperate closely with the criminals who had enslaved its own men. It is important to record the remote possibility that some of those 944 American soldiers may still be alive—and still slaves in a Russian concentration camp.

1. Robert Murphy, Diplomat Among Warriors, (Garden City, Doubleday & Company, 1964), p. 358. 2. Loc. cit. 3. Chesly Manly, The UN Record (Chicago, Henry Regnery Company, 1955), p. 85. 4. Mark W. Clark, From the Danube to the Yalu (New York, Harper & Bros., 1954), p. 267.

5. Ibid., pp. 268-70. 6. New York Times, June 9, 1953, p. 3. 7. Clark, op. cit., p. 280. 8. Murphy, op. cit., pp. 358-59. 9. New York Times, June 18, 1953, p. 1. 10. Ibid., June 19, 1953, p. 1. 11. Richard Goold-Adams, The Time of Power: A Reappraisal of John Foster Dulles (London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1962), p. 74. 12. New York Times, June 18, 1953, p. 1. 13. Ibid., June 21, 1953, p. 1. 14. Ibid., September 18, 1953, p. 1. And Manly, op. cit., p. 86. 15. New York Times, September 18, 1953, p. 1. 16. Ibid., September 29, 1953, p. 1. 17. Ibid., September 30, 1953, p. 1. 18. Ibid., October 2, 1953, p. 1. 19. Ibid., October 6, 1953, p. 1. 20. Ibid., October 24 1953, p. 3. 21. Ibid., November 1, 1953, p. 5. 22. Clark, op. cit., p. 298. 23. New York Times, April 5, 1955, p. 12 24. Clark, op. cit., p. 312. 222

25. New York Times, April 30, 1953, p. 3. 26. Ibid., November 29, 1953, pp. 1, 2. 27. Ibid., August 11, 1953, p. 1; August 13, 1953, p. November 24, 1954, p. 1.


America is stale in its freedom; Russia is dynamic. We have much for each other.1 John Foster Dulles

Chapter Fifteen: THE BRICKER

THE CONTINUOUS campaign to destroy the United States by submerging it in an international Socialist dictatorship, was becoming obvious by 1952, primarily because of the Korean War. Our entry into that phony conflict was arranged through our membership in the United Nations—by way of a treaty. Now, many people began to worry that other such treaties could be used for similar purposes. Senator John W. Bricker, for instance, began to be afraid that the government was trying to use treaties to make domestic "reforms." He warned against imposing "Socialism by treaty" on the United States. He charged, for instance, that the Human Rights Commission of the UN, in collaboration with our Department of State, was trying to install as domestic law, by way of a treaty, a proposed "Covenant on Human Rights," which, according to Article VI of the Constitution, would become "the supreme law of the land . . . anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding," and would thereby supersede our own Bill of Rights. In 1952, as we have seen, Dulles was very big box-office in his new role as a "conservative Republican anti-Communist," and in that year the role he was playing on stage included some lines of sympathy for the growing movement which sought to prevent the treaty trickery then being planned. So on April 12, 1952, he told a regional meeting of the American Bar Association in Louisville what the problem was all about: The treatymaking power is an extraordinary power, liable to abuse. Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution treaties become the supreme law of the land. They are indeed more 224

supreme than ordinary laws, for congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty laws can over-ride the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the state and give them to the federal government or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given the people by the constitutional Bill of Rights.2
Thus, in January 1953, before reintroducing his proposed Constitutional Amendment to prevent such abuses, Bricker called Dulles and Eisenhower to get their support. He perhaps labored under the interesting impression, like many of the rest of us, that they were fellow Republicans. Eisenhower wasn't at all hostile, apparently, when Bricker first explained the idea,3 conceivably because he didn't really understand what it was about—it is, after all, a rather large grammatical step from the Lone Ranger to the American Constitution. But his thinking was rearranged for the occasion on February 20, 1953, when Dulles made his first report to the Cabinet on the proposed Amendment—and a highly critical report it was. Dulles also wrote to Eisenhower, warning that adoption "would be taken by our friends and by our enemies as foreshadowing a revolutionary change in the position of the United States," 4 which of course was true. On March 13, Bricker defended the Amendment on the Senate floor, quoting from Dulles's recent speech to the American Bar Association—a nasty thing to do to a fellow "conservative Republican anti-Communist." Dwight Eisenhower wrote:

To Senator Bricker these quotations showed that Secretary Dulles acknowledged that there was a need for the Bricker amendment. But in the hearings of the Judiciary Committee, Secretary Dulles testified that the one clause in his speech, 'treaty law can override the Constitution,' did not accurately reflect his views. He said that he recognized that any governmental power, including the treaty-making power, was subject to abuse. The treaty powers of the Constitution, however, had not in fact been abused in the 165 years since the Constitution was adopted. . . .5 If, in 1953, the Amendment is unnecessary and the clause doesn't reflect his views, then why, less than a year earlier, did constitutional expert Dulles use the clause and cite the danger? He said finally, in this same testimony on April 6, 1953, 225

that the Administration would exercise the treaty-making power "only within traditional limits." 6 He promised. It even goes without saying that a conservative Republican anti-Communist would never willingly let the UN interfere in our domestic affairs—would never let UN laws replace our own. So Dulles really applied the pressure. He was opposed, says Sherman Adams, "to anything resembling the Bricker Amendment, no matter how harmless or well intentioned such a proposal might appear. . . ." 7 He fought for "total defeat" of the Bricker Amendment, says Donovan, refusing to accept even a "watered-down" substitute.8 And although it had been sponsored overwhelmingly by 62 other senators—from both major parties—the Bricker Amendment was finally defeated. It is interesting to observe that, as with the terms of the Korean armistice, Truman— a Democrat—couldn't have done it, Dulles won because of his reputation as a "conservative Republican anti-Communist." So what had happened, in a line, was this: in the 1952 Platform, Dulles had given a promise to "see to it that no treaty or agreement with other countries deprives our citizens of the rights guaranteed them by the Federal Constitution" —and a year later he fought every legislative action which might have helped him keep his promise. Now of course, one could present a long parade of loyal constitutional experts, who could show us why the Bricker Amendment itself would have been a good thing. But, then, another could present us with another parade, equally long, equally loyal and equally expert, who would tell us why the Bricker Amendment would have been a bad thing. And that wouldn't get us anywhere at all. We can easily establish Dulles's exact position in the matter of "Socialism by treaty"—simply by recording his opinions of the UN treaties the ratification of which Senator Bricker designed his amendment to prevent, and then by having a look at the treaties themselves. In 1948, we hear his opinion of the proposed International Declaration of Human Rights in the periodical published by the Communist-controlled Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: "I hope and believe this Assembly will endorse this Declaration. But we must not stop there. We must go on with the drafting of a Covenant which will seek to translate human rights into law. . . ." The Declaration "is an impor226

tant proclamation of principle and should be approved. . . ." 9 The UN did approve the Declaration and in March 1953, while the Bricker controversy was raging on, Dulles described it as:

a very splendid statement of the high ideals of the nations of the world with respect to human rights. That was a beacon which we set up in the hopes that all the nations of the world would be inspired by that to follow in the way that it pointed out. I believe that was a fine and worthy act on the part of the United Nations. Whether or not the time has yet come when that can be translated into treaties of international force is a more debatable question, and there may be delays and some disappointments in that respect.10
For instance, on April 3, 1953—three days before he told the Senate, in effect, that the Bricker Amendment was unnecessary because he could be trusted—he writes Mrs. Oswald B. Lord, U.S. representative in the UN Human Rights Commission, and complains of "the likelihood that the Covenants will not be as widely accepted by United Nations members as initially anticipated." He says that "a wider general acceptance of human rights goals must be attained before it seems useful to codify standards of human rights as binding international legal obligations in the Covenants." And he concludes therefore that

we should not at this time become a party to any multilateral treaty such as those contemplated in the draft Covenants on Human Rights, and that we should now work toward the objectives of the Declaration by other means. While the Commission continues, under the General Assembly's instructions, with the drafting of the Covenants, you are, of course, expected to participate. This would be incumbent on the United States as a loyal Member of the United Nations.11 (Italics added)
So Dulles would like the principles of the Declaration, embodied in the Covenants, adopted as domestic law by the United States. "The Covenant or Pact is a convention or international treaty which, like any other treaty, will be legally binding on all the States which ratify it," writes future Commission chairman Charles Malik in 1949, when the first Covenant Was being prepared. The signatory States must see to it that their internal situa227

tion conforms to their obligations under the Covenant. . . .

. . . These rights and freedoms have hitherto fallen exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of the separate states, but the Covenant will have the effect of lifting them
from being the independent and exclusive concern of the

separate sovereign states to being the common concern,
under international law, of all the covenanting states. . .


Indeed, writes Malik in 1952, "under the Charter itself, human rights problems are no longer exclusively or even essentially matters for domestic jurisdiction. . . ." 13
Let's have a look at what "conservative Republican anti-

Communist" John Foster Dulles was trying to arrange for the American people. Let's have a look at the Draft Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 5, paragraph 1 tells us that "Work being at the basis of all human endeavor"—a claim you just can't argue with—"the States Parties to the Covenant recognize the right to work, that is to say, the fundamental right of everyone to the opportunity, if he so desires, to gain his living by work
which he freely accepts."

And paragraph 2 says this means "programs, policies and techniques to achieve steady economic development and full and productive employment under conditions safeguarding fundamental political and economic freedoms to the individual." Dr. Malik explains that: ". . . According to the Soviet concept, the government is the agency that 'guarantees' for everybody the enjoyment of the right to work, to proper conditions of work, to 'social security,' to education, etc. . . ."14 In fact, says Article 118 of the Soviet "Constitution" of 1936:
Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work, i.e., the right to guaranteed employment. . . . The right to work is ensured by the socialist organization of national economy, the steady growth of the productive forces of Soviet society, the preclusion of the possibil-

ity of economic crises, and the abolition of unemployment.
Observe the striking similarity not only of the ideas—but even of the phrases. Article 6 of the UN Covenant mentions "the right of everyone to just and favorable conditions of work, including 228

. . rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay." Article 119 of the Soviet Constitution says "Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to rest and leisure. "The right to rest and leisure is ensured by the reduction of the working day to seven hours for the overwhelming majority of the workers, the institution of annual vacations with pay for workers and other employees and the provision of a wide network of sanatoria, rest homes and clubs for the accommodation of the toilers." Sounds like it came from the typewriter of Lyndon Johnson, doesn't it. Then there is Article 8 of the UN Covenant, which speaks of "the right of everyone to social security," and Article 120 of the Soviet Constitution, which says that "Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work. "This right is ensured by the wide development of social insurance of workers and other employees at state expense, free medical service, and the provision of a wide network of health resorts for the accommodation of the toilers." Indeed, Article 10 of the Covenant mentions "the right of everyone to adequate food, clothing and housing"; Article 11 mentions "the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living and the continuous improvement of living conditions"; and Article 12 calls for "The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness." Sounds exactly like the language of the 1960 Democratic Platform, doesn't it! And finally there is Article 13 of the Covenant, which mentions "the right of everyone to education," and says that "primary education shall be compulsory and available free to all," and that "higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit and shall be made progressively free. . . ." And there is Article 121 of the Soviet Constitution, which says that "Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to education. "This right is ensured by universal, compulsory elementary education; by the fact that education, including higher (university) education is free of charge; by the system of state scholarships for the overwhelming majority of students in the higher schools. . . ." Observe that a government equipped to hand all that out 229

not only wouldn't "wither away," as promised by Socialist scripture, but would have to be even bigger than the govern ment of Rome when that great humanitarian Tiberius Bin was handing out circuses and bread. Observe that the Soviet Constitution-UN Covenant i based on the idea that man is a helpless weakling and a contemptible slave, who can be kept alive only by government handouts. And observe that our own Constitution says nothing at all about what the government will hand out, because the Founding Fathers were perfectly aware that man is a heroic being who can produce whatever he needs to take care of himself—if a way can only be found to keep various crooked politicians off his back. Now let's have a look at the UN's Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 2, paragraph 1 explains that "In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation, and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties hereto may take measures derogating from their obligations under this Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. . . ." So if the government decides there is a "public emergency," and says so officially, it can suspend your rights and lock you up. It is interesting to note that Dulles rejected the Bricker Amendment—which would have prevented this UN law from destroying our Bill of Rights—allegedly because it was "impossibly vague." 15 So the Bricker Amendment, says constitutional expert Dulles, is just too confusing, but a UN phrase like "to the extent strictly required"—this, apparently, is radiant with clarity. "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person," says Article 7, paragraph 1, of the UN Covenant. "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law." Articles 127 and 128 of the Soviet Constitution say: "The citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed inviolability of person. No person may be placed under arrest except by decision of court or with the sanction of a state attorney." And: "The inviolability of the homes of citizens and secrecy of correspondence are protected by law." And the tragically funny thing of course is that Stalin com230

posed these lines soon after murdering a few million Ukrainian farmers. Then there is Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, which says that "everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. . . ." As in the Soviet Constitution, nothing is said about trial by a jury of one's peers. So what conservative Republican antiCommunist Dulles was trying to substitute for American law, was a system of administrative, or military, law, in which, as in Russia, or any dictatorship, a government board decides your fate, not on the facts, but simply to conform to government policy. There is also Article 14, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, which says that "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others." Why? What limitations? And there is Article 15, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Covenant, which explain that the "freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds" unfortunately "carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall be such only as are provided by law and are necessary, (1) for respect for the rights or reputations of others, (2) for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals." And this, as you will recall, was the idea specifically approved by Alien Dulles, in his FPA booklet, as a way of preventing the distribution of nasty remarks about the United Nations. There is finally Article 17, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the UN Covenant, which mention "the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions," but which also say that "No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those prescribed by law. . . ." Why should any restrictions at all be placed on somebody's right to associate with others or join a union? Observe in fact that while the UN Covenant constantly repeats that our rights may be denied "as prescribed by law," the American Constitution it would replace says the exact opposite: that "Congress shall make no law" about our rights. Our Founding Fathers knew that our rights are "unalien231

able," ours by virtue of our natures as men, and that it should not matter what anybody says about it; they knew, therefore, that government's only powers are our powers; and they knew that government is the greatest danger to freedom—a dictatorship, after all, is an all-powerful government, a total government. That is why they wrote in our Constitution not about the rights they might benevolently hand out— as in the UN Covenants and the Soviet Constitution on which those Covenants are based—but about the strictly limited powers the people would allow the government to use. The whole point was exactly to prevent a bunch of thugs from grabbing our government and creating a dictatorship— by denying our rights "as prescribed by law." The point is that a government which has the power to hand out rights, also has the power to deny those rights—and to do so "as prescribed by law" is only to pretend that the violation is valid. You will remember, for instance, that everything the Nazis did—from the enslavement of Germany itself to the murder of millions—was perfectly legal. Since they had grabbed the government, they could make their own laws. It was all legal —and all wrong. So what conservative Republican anti-Communist John Foster Dulles was trying to do in fact, by means of the UN Covenants on Human Rights, was to replace our Constitution with its exact opposite—to impose on Americans the principles of the Nazi and Soviet dictatorships. He was trying to do the very thing he had warned us about in 1952. As we have seen, he was, in fact, trying to do it at the very moment he was telling the Senate he could be trusted. Indeed, on April 6, 1953, Dulles also assured the Senate that the Eisenhower Administration would not press for approval of another UN treaty called the Genocide Convention. On December 3—eight months later—the same Administration's UN delegation voted for a resolution which described the Convention as "a valuable contribution to the development of international law"; appealed to the various nations to ratify it; and asked the secretary-general to continue working for it. Watts writes that

[the Genocide Convention] defines this crime not merely as race murder, which is the original meaning of genocide, but as an act or word which causes serious mental harm or inflicts 'conditions of life calculated to bring about' the 232

physical destruction in whole or in part of a 'national, ethnical, racial or religious group.1 Even acts or words which the court might interpret as 'incitement,' 'attempt to commit,' or 'complicity' in causing serious mental harm or imposing 'conditions of life' are defined as 'Genocide.'16 Sounds a lot like our "Civil Rights" Act, doesn't it? And it provides that persons charged with violating it will be tried by a national tribunal "or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction. . . . " A resolution adopted by the Assembly along with the Convention says that "there will be an increasing need of an international judicial organ for the trial of certain crimes under international law." So, incredible though it is, an American could actually be charged under the Genocide Convention with an "attempt to commit" serious mental harm—whatever in the world that can be—and physically removed from the United States, removed from the protection of our Bill of Rights, to be tried by an international court under the incredible rules we have examined in the Covenants. And, dumbfounding though it is, John Foster Dulles thought this was fine. Now of course, Dulles was a "conservative Republican anti-Communist," wasn't he. He must have been—everybody says so. And therefore we shouldn't just end this chapter with the conclusion that he was circuitously trying to impose a Nazi-Communist dictatorship on the American people, should we. A thing like that could be embarrassing, especially for a conservative Republican anti-Communist. So let's try to explain it away, by arguing for instance that Dulles was "naive." Couldn't it be that like a lot of honest, loyal and intelligent Americans, he just didn't know what Communism was really about? Couldn't it be he just didn't know that the UN Covenants he was trying to substitute for our American Constitution were in fact another version of Joseph Stalin's 1936 "Constitution"? No. We should congratulate ourselves, of course, for a wonderful attempt, but we simply can't conclude that at all. You see, commentator after commentator tells us that one of the few books Dulles was never without was Joseph Stalin's Problems of Leninism.17 Dulles himself said at a news conference that he kept the book on his desk both at home and in his office.18 Which probably explains why Donovan says "Eisenhower has recommended to associates that for a 233

penetrating insight into Soviet philosophy they ought to have Dulles give them a twenty-minute summary of Stalin's Problems of Leninism, something the President once listened to with admiration." 19 And in that book, which Dulles was never without—and which he summarized, masterfully, to Eisenhower's delight— there is a long, detailed discussion of Stalin's 1936 Constitution. The "main foundation" of it, Stalin tells us, is "the principles of socialism," such as

the abolition of unemployment; work as an obligation and an honorable duty for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the formula: 'He who does not work, neither shall he eat'; the right to work, i.e., the right of every citizen to guaranteed employment; the right to rest and leisure; the right to education, etc., etc. The Draft of the new Constitution rests on these and similar pillars of socialism. It reflects them, it embodies them in law.20
So there just isn't any other way to slice it, is there. Dulles unfortunately knew perfectly well that the UN Covenants were nothing else but Stalin's "Constitution"—and so we see in what ways he preferred Stalin's ideas to James Madison's. But wait a minute. How many Americans has either of us met, who know anything at all about the Commission on Human Rights and have ever actually read the Covenants? Couldn't it be that like many honest, loyal and intelligent Americans, Dulles hadn't really read them and didn't really know what was happening in the Commission? Gee, it's really too bad—we're trying so hard—but unfortunately this question makes more trouble than we had when we asked it. You see, in his letter to Mrs. Lord of April 3, 1953, Dulles explained that the reason for the difficulty in getting the Covenants accepted was that "such drafts of Covenants as had a reasonable chance of acceptance in some respects established standards lower than those now observed in a number of countries. . . . " And there was a gentleman named O. Frederick Nolde. Nolde, as we recall, was installed by Dulles as director of the Marxist-controlled Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, which was organized by Dulles with the assistance of Marxist agents Niebuhr, Mackay and G. Bromley Oxnam. Nolde was a member of the executive committee of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace along with 234

Dulles; was a member of the Commission on a Just and Durable Peace along with Dulles; and was also at the San Francisco Conference to establish the UN along with Dulles. Nolde was one of two federal councilmen, says the Federal Council of Churches, whose efforts "were instrumental in securing acceptance of a Commission on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the Charter provisions. . . ." 21 Edward Duff writes that Nolde, who is "the World Council's specialist on questions of human rights, played a by no means unimportant role in this phase of the San Francisco Conference of 1945." For instance:
... In the phrasing of Article 18 of the UN Declaration on religious liberty the Director of the CCIA had collaborated, and the results won the support of that organization's Executive Committee. . . . . . . The Director of the CCIA as a consultant had offered suggestions on the articles on religious liberty and religious education in the drafts of the Covenants which had received the general approval of the CCIA Executive

in July 1952. . . .22

And this raises the question, does it not, of what sort of suggestions they are, because these are the very Covenants which replace the American Constitution's warning that "Congress shall make no law" about religion—with the power of the government to restrict religion "as prescribed by law." Only a few weeks earlier, as you will recall, in April 1952, Dulles was in Louisville, warning the American Bar Association that treaties can "cut across" our Bill of Rights. And in a booklet published by the Marxist-controlled Foreign Policy Association, we learned that Nolde has attended every session of the Commission on Human Rights, and he tells us that
the provisions of the Declaration must be applied in domestic and community life. Nations which are disposed to improve their conduct in observing human rights will be able to make use of the Declaration as a standard both for legislation and for court interpretation. Such applications should be encouraged. . . .23 In fact, Dulles himself said as follows, in the report called "The Churches and the World Order," which he presented to the Federal Council of Churches in March 1946: 235

We are gratified that the Commission on Human Rights has now been established. We support the recommendation adopted by the Economic and Social Council that the Commission on Human Rights shall direct its labors towards such objectives as (a) the formulation of an International Bill of Rights. . . .24 So it's really very embarrassing, but unfortunately we have to conclude that "conservative Republican anti-Communist" Dulles not only knew about the plot to destroy our Bill of Rights with the Soviet "Constitution"; and not only was part of it—he was one of the handful of people who were actually running it.

1. Auburn, (New York), Citizen-Advertiser, January 19, 1944, p. 9. 2. Chesly Manly, The UN Record (Chicago, Henry Regnery Company, 1955), p. 197. 3. Robert J. Donovan, Eisenhower: The Inside Story (New York, Harper & Bros., 1956), p. 232. 4. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change (Garden City, Doubleday & Company, 1963), p. 280. 5. Loc. cit. 6. Manly, op. cit., pp. 200-01. 7. Sherman Adams, Firsthand Report (New York, Harper & Bros., 1961), p. 106. And Donovan, op. cit., p. 234. 8. Donovan, op. cit., p. 238. 9. J. F. Dulles, "The Future of the United Nations," International Conciliation, No. 445, November, 1948, pp. 584-85. 10. Speech delivered on March 1, 1953 to the American Association for the United Nations. Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 716, March 16, 1953, p. 404. 11. United States Mission to the United Nations, press release #1688, April 9, 1953. 12. Dr. Charles Malik and Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt, "The Covenant on Human Rights" (pamphlet, no date, no imprint, reprinted from The United Nations Bulletin, July 1 1949), Lake Success (New York), United Nations, pp. 4-5. 13. Charles Malik, "Human Rights in the United Nations' (pamphlet, United Nations at Work—No. 1, reprinted from "The United Nations Bulletin, Vol. 13, No. 5, September 1 1952), (New York United Nations, 1952), p. 11. 14. Ibid., p. 7. 15. Eisenhower, op. cit., pp. 279-80. 16. V. Orval Watts, The United Nations: Planned Tyranny (New York, The Devin-Adair Company, 1955), p. 89. 236

17. John Robinson Deal, John Foster Dulles (New York, Harper & Bros., 1957), p. 4; Herman Finer, Dulles Over Suez: The Theory and Practice of His Diplomacy, (Chicago, Quadrangle Books, 1964), p. 2. 18. New York Times, April 4, 1956, p. 8. 19. Donovan, op. cit., p. 162. 20. Joseph Stalin, Problems of Leninism (Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953), p. 690. 21. Federal Council of Churches, Annual Report, 1945, p. 53. 22. Edward Duff, S.J., The Social Thought of the World Council of Churches (London, Longmans, Green and Co., 1956), pp. 277-78. 23. O. Frederick Nolde, Freedom's Charter (New York, Foreign Policy Association, Headline Series, No. 76, JulyAugust, 1949), pp. 52-53. 24. Federal Council of Churches, Biennial Report, 1946, p. 158.


Certainly it is the fact that a sense of fidelity to one's word is one of the cardinal human virtues. It is a cornerstone of any well organized, peaceful society. It would be a hopeless task to create an organically sound social structure unless it could be assumed that the members, predominantly, felt morally bound to live up to their promises... .1
John Foster Dulles

Chapter Sixteen: "LIBERATION"
IT WAS of course at the Yalta Conference in Russia, in February of 1945, where Churchill represented Britain, Soviet Liar Alger Hiss represented Stalin, Roosevelt represented himself and nobody represented us, that the delivery of Eastern Europe to Stalin was secretly arranged. And when that grim truth began to emerge, so many Americans became so enraged, that Yalta and Eastern Europe became major issues in the 1952 campaign. What they wanted was repudiation of the secret agreements made at Yalta and elsewhere, active opposition to the slave-states the agreements created, and the assurance that no such secret agreements could be made again. The remarkably adaptable Dulles tongue was operating as always with the sensitive precision of an Indian diplomat at the U.S. Treasury. He naturally denounced the Dean Acheson-George F. Kennan policy of "containment," 2 under which America would acquiesce in a Communist Eastern Europe and the Communists allegedly would be "contained," and proposed to replace it with a policy of "liberation," which would slowly destroy the Socialist plantation by encouraging the slaves to use passive resistance. And since voters were aware that i was crucial for the Socialist slaves to know that America had now changed its position and would no longer collaborated with Socialist slavery, he promised, as we have seen, in the. 1952 platform, to "repudiate all commitments contained in secret understandings such as those of Yalta which aid Communist enslavements. . . ." 238

It was of course the same man, now in office, who was unalterably opposed to any specific repudiation of Yalta. Sherman Adams writes: . . . He urged Eisenhower, in his first State of the Union address, to refer to the secret agreements only in general terms, without mentioning Yalt by name. This caused an uproar from the Republicans, who had confidently expected that one of the first acts of the Eisenhower administration would be an official out-and-out withdrawal from any and all deals negotiated with the Stalin government by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman.3 Observe that real Republicans were, as always, fiercely partisan, seeing a chance to clobber the hated Democrats. In fact, writes Donovan:
After working closely with Dulles on the wording, the President on February 20 sent up a resolution proposing that Congress join him in rejecting 'any interpretations or applications' of secret agreements 'which have been perverted to bring about the subjugation of free peoples. . . .' 4

So not only were Yalta and the others not denounced by name—they weren't denounced at all. Since all Dulles was criticizing were "perverted applications," it follows, does it not, that he thought the secret agreements themselves were perfectly all right. Indeed, Adams says that, at a conference in the White House on February 23, Senator Taft demanded that the resolution be revised, saying: [it] admitted that the agreements made by Roosevelt and Truman were valid and that he could never agree to such an admission. Dulles came back with the flat assertion that the agreements were valid, as everybody at the meeting really knew, and that the United States could not run out on them. . . .5 So in the fall of 1952, Dulles denounces Yalta and promises to repudiate it—and only a few months later, he says it is valid and that repudiation is impossible. Can there be any other explanation than that he secretly believed it was "valid" all along, and made the promise simply because that was what we peasants wanted to hear? Says Adams: To the immense relief of Eisenhower and Dulles, the controversy over the enslaved-peoples resolution was ended by 239

an unexpected event, the death of Joseph Stalin on March 5, 1953. At the next meeting of the legislative leaders on March 9, Dulles said he felt that Stalin's death made the resolution no longer necessary or fitting. . . .6

Why? Why would Dulles and Eisenhower feel "immense relief"? Eastern Europe, after all, was still enslaved. And why would Dulles select, as Ambassador to Russia, Charles E. Bohlen, who had been Roosevelt's interpreter and adviser at Yalta, and who now told examining senators that the agreements he helped make there were perfectly all right.7 By the summer of 1954, Administration spokesmen began using the phrase "peaceful coexistence" to describe our policy, says L. Brent Bozell, "borrowing a term originally attributed to Lenin." Indeed, he reminds us, in June 1955, "under heavy Adminstration pressure," the Senate rejected the McCarthy resolution, which recommended getting a prior Soviet commitment to discuss Socialist satellites at the forthcoming Geneva summit meeting on the ground that the Socialist slave empire is the cause of world tensions; in October 1955, the government offered "to guarantee the boundaries of the Communist empire"; and in December it promoted the admission of Communist satellites to the UN, and "thus acquiesces in the UN's ratification of Communist rule in eastern Europe. . . ." 8 It is important to note the unusual agreement among various ideological competitors about the true meaning of Dulles's policy. Joseph C. Harsch, for instance, a "liberal," writes that "at the end of Mr. Dulles' third year in office his policy was almost diametrically opposed to what he said it was going to be when he started out. . . ." 9 Harsch cites Paul Nitze, another "liberal," who in an article published by the Council on Foreign Relations explained that Dulles used a "declaratory policy"—which apparently is what he tells us boobs—and an "action policy," which is what he really does.10 According to the dictionary this is lying. Indeed, you will remember that it was exactly the technique recommended by Marxist agent Edward House. Then there was conservative Republican, Senator William E. Jenner, who quotes with approval from another article by "liberal" Harsch: "Mr. Dulles's record in office has been a difficult one to follow. He has seemed so often to be trying to 240

lead us toward war when we know now that he actually was maneuvering all the time to try to disengage the United States. . . . From the day he took office his steps have been pointed toward the relaxation of Geneva."11 Jenner comments that "This planned contraction of the frontiers of freedom coincides strangely with the Soviet policy of expanding their circles of "neutralized states,'" and that "The most important fact in our international relations today is that the leaders of foreign nations who love liberty see clearly every step in our submission to Moscow, and know some one planned it that way. . . ." Indeed, he says: "The policy of disengagement could be carried out only because of President Eisenhower's great popularity. . . ." And James (There-Ain't-Nobody-Here-But-Us-Liberals) Burnham says: . . . Under his incumbency we have never taken even the smallest initiative. . . . Mr. Dulles has, in fact, gone further than his Democratic predecessors in holding containment within its negative bounds. . . .12
Observe once again that what made it possible was our idea that John Foster Dulles was a conservative Republican antiCommunist. Also revealing is the story of the publication of the Yalta Papers, and those of the other crucial wartime conferences. The papers of course were the official records of what had happened; of how the postwar world had been arranged; of how the Socialist slave empire had been created. If it was really to be destroyed, it was imperative that the American people be told fully and clearly how the crime had been committed. During the Truman Administration, as one would expect, overwhelming pressure prevented publication. In March 1950, for instance, G. Bernard Noble, chief of the Division of Historical Policy Research of the Department of State, and a member of the Institute of Pacific Relations, sent a memorandum to Secretary Acheson advising against publication of the Yalta documents on the ground, says Newsweek, "that this would 'embarrass' officials of the Democratic administration and would lead to demands for publication of the minutes of other conferences." 13 Noble apparently didn't explain why it would be that the desire of the American people to find out what their government had done would be so improper a desire, but his memo241

randum reveals plenty, does it not, not only about himself, but about the conferences he is trying to conceal. The appointment of John Foster Dulles therefore came as good news to curious Americans. Dulles, after all, was a "conservative Republican anti-Communist" and this was a chance to strike mighty blows against the Democrats and the Communists. Nothing of the kind even remotely took place. There was no change at all. In November 1954, for instance, we read that the Cairo and Potsdam papers have not even been set in galleys, conceivably because some of them are "more explosive than anything contained in the Yalta collection," which itself is six months behind. ". . . One reason for the slowness of the work seems to be continued reluctance at the 'working level' within the State Department itself to publication of the documents. Many Republicans attribute this delaying action to officials brought in during the Truman Administration and retained in the Department." 14 Then there is the interesting experience of State Department official Bryton Barron, who originally compiled the Yalta Papers. When he submitted his work to the Historical Division in mid-1954, says State Department colleague Donald Dozer,

he [Barton] was subjected to grueling brain-washing sessions as they tried to secure his consent to the deletion of important documents. ... As a result of changes and deletions in which he did not concur and of the restrictions on his research, the compilation became, as he pointed out in a memorandum to Assistant Secretary McCardle in December 1954, 'a distorted, incomplete, badly expurgated compilation that tends to shield the previous administration, will mislead the American people, and cannot fail to bring criticism on the Department from competent historians and students of public affairs. . . .' 15 Both Dozer and Barron, naturally, were fired. Something eventually would have to be released, however, and so in March 1955, McCardle "leaked" to The New York Times the twisted compilation Barron had denounced. Sure enough, about 10 per cent of the record was eliminated, which "makes it difficult to trace motives for some decisions that greatly favored the Soviets," says US News & World Report. Missing for instance was the full story of the concessions given Stalin to come into the war, and of a conflict between 242

the Army and Navy about how necessary this was; the full story of how Poland was delivered to Communist slavery; the truth about our failure to get a land corridor to occupied Berlin; and the truth about the crucial influence of Alger Hiss.16 Indeed, later in the year, the Department issued a revised version of the revised version issued in March, and the new revision omitted from the index references to many of the most important arrangements Hiss made at Yalta.17 And in December 1955, a delegation of State Department officials called at the office of Senator Styles Bridges to urge that an investigation of the mishandling of the Yalta Papers be dropped.18 By the middle of 1956, with nothing released but the deliberately botched version of the Yalta Papers, the Chicago Tribune was concluding:

. . . there is a conspiracy to deny the American people the record of diplomatic folly and betrayal which have put this nation in a jam unparalleled in its history . . . .19

John Foster Dulles as Secretary of State was completely responsible. Indeed, says Newsweek, it was he who decided to delay publication of the Yalta Papers until after the 1954 elections,20 which is an interesting decision, because a real Republican would have taken pains to publish them before the elections, wouldn't he, as a way of convincing the people to reject the Democrats. And on April 19, 1955, soon after the twisted version was "leaked" to the press, Dulles told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that in deciding exactly what to publish he "relied primarily upon" a gentleman named G. Bernard Noble.21 This is the same G. Bernard Noble who in March 1950, as we have seen, advised Acheson against publication because it would "embarrass" the Truman Administration and lead to demands for the truth about the other conferences. Observe, finally, that what we are seeing here is simply the implementation of the policy formulated by the Council on Foreign Relations, which Dulles helped to found, and by the Rockefeller Foundation, which Dulles helped to run, which as you will remember planned to prevent Americans from learning the truth about the Second World War, in order to avoid the interruption of their schemes which might be caused by public understanding of the First. 243

Fairness demands the recognition, however, that in this caper, at least, Eisenhower completely stole the show. In March 1955, with the release of the Yalta Papers, the President of the United States explained as follows: "There is nothing to be gained by going back ten years and showing that in the light of after events, someone may have been right, and someone may have been wrong." 22 And the only thing one can say about this is that here we reach a depth of stupidity rarely plumbed even by Eisenhower; such downright stupidity, in fact, that the only reasonable conclusion is that he meant it as a gag. For if there really isn't anything to be gained by evaluating events, then nothing can be gained by a study of history. Indeed, not only history, but the learning process itself becomes impossible. You will also remember that in 1952, in the Platform, Dulles made still another promise—to remove from the State Department everybody responsible for such crimes as Yalta. That the promise was necessary, was shown for instance at the Cabinet meeting of January 30, 1953, when Attorney General Herbert Brownell reported that there were already in progress ten separate investigations of the State Department alone.23 "Conservative Republican anti-Communist" Dulles sprang again into the breach. In August 1953, Scott McLeod, new head of personnel and security—whom Dulles hired ostensibly to accomplish the housecleaning he had promised—explained in a speech that he was having difficulty replacing people, and that he opposed the employment or retention of Socialists in the Department. A few days later, in a press conference, "conservative Republican anti-Communist" John Foster Dulles was asked whether Socialists were proper employees of the Department of State. He answered "that he had not become sufficiently familiar with the Socialist platform to know whether it contained anything which was incompatible with the type of foreign policy we are carrying out." 24 The consummate artistry of the man, his delightful impudence, produces a warm glow of admiration in the breast, doesn't it. Is it reasonable to believe, do you think, that a man who is never without Problems of Leninism, by Joseph Stalin, and who can summarize it masterfully in twenty minutes, according to the unassailable opinion of Dwight Eisenhower, could possibly be so thoroughly unaware of the Socialist platform? Does this deliberate, obvious and insulting ig244

norance sound to you like the remark of a man eager to conduct the thorough housecleaning he has promised? Is it what you would expect from a genuine Republican of any sort? Or a genuine Democrat? Indeed, in June 1955, Dulles said in South Carolina that sweeping changes in the State Department "would have been a grave mistake." 25 There was no housecleaning. Dulles, as usual, didn't believe at all what he told us in 1952. He never had any intention of honoring his promise. He made it simply to satisfy us patriotic Americans. Why would sweeping changes have been a grave mistake? As Dulles said in 1952, it was nothing else but sweeping changes that were needed. His refusal to make sweeping changes left the Department in the hands of the same people who committed the Yalta betrayal Dulles claimed to be against. Indeed, says Barron in 1956: ". . . Many of the same elements, many of the same influences that were powerful at the time of the tragic events at Yalta are even more powerful today, both inside and outside the Department. . . ." In the Historical Division, for instance, which earlier had advised against publication of the Yalta Papers, the same men are in the same positions. In the bureau which handles UN affairs, several important officials remain who were close associates of Alger Hiss.26 Some ten years later we learn, in fact, in sworn testimony, that at about this same time, in 1956, Scott McLeod, the Department's own security chief, handed officials a list of 258 employees who were "particularly dangerous" security risks, and whose retention would have been a "grave risk." 27 This was soon after Dulles claimed that sweeping changes would have been a grave mistake. Among the 258 were homosexuals, people who had knowingly associated with espionage agents, active members of organizations designated by the Attorney General as Communist fronts—and actual members of the Communist Party itself. McLeod's report completely disappeared, of course. Indeed, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee was told at first that no such report had ever existed. Dean Rusk told the members he didn't know a thing. State Department officials finally discovered a copy in their files, when the senators showed they had some of the information in it—but claimed 245

they couldn't show it to the subcommittee because it was so secret. Said the Fort Lauderdale News:

Further prodding by the subcommittee, however, finally revealed that 166 of these 258 were still employed and that subsequent to the McLeod report many had been given promotions and had been assigned to even more sensitive positions than they had held before. But just who these people are and where they are is still a well-kept secret of the State Department. One has to read the full transcript of the testimony given to the subcommittee to fully understand the extent to which top State Department officials went to keep the full details of their lax security methods out of the hands of the investigating senators. This included lying by some, halftruths by others and deviousness and doubletalk all down the line.28 But without doubt the most dramatic and revealing proof of Dulles's true opinion of the Yalta betrayal—and the sincerity of his policy of "liberation"—is to be found in Evanston, Illinois in 1954. You will remember that in 1948, Marxist agents John Bennett, Bromley Oxnam, Reinhold Niebuhr and John Mackay formed the Marxist World Council of Churches, in Amsterdam, in collusion with John Foster Dulles, a "conservative Republican anti-Communist." That particular Marxist front voted to hold its second world assembly in Evanston in 1952, but in the meantime the Congress passed the nasty McCarran-Walter Act, which forbade the entry of subversives into the United States, and that naturally made a problem. The problem was that eleven characters with their collars on backwards were scheduled to attend as delegates from such Marxist-controlled countries as Hungary and Czechoslovakia. There was Josef L. Hromadka, of course, of Prague, a member of the Central Committee of WCC, with whom Dulles had spent delightful hours, as we have seen, at the first WCC assembly in 1948. Since then Hromadka had not been idle. In Helsinki, Finland, for instance, on July 23, 1951, he spoke at a Communist rally, publicly using his important place in the World Council of Churches to lend tone to his Communist remarks. In June 1953, he was made a member of the World Council of Peace, a Communist organization sponsored by the Soviet regime. And in several speeches, he had accused the United States of using germ warfare in Korea.29 246

Then there was "Bishop" Jan Chabada, also of Czechoslovakia, an official in the Communist Party, and Karl Kotula, another collaborator, who owed his position in the Polish Lutheran Church to the Communist gang holding that country.30 And there was "Bishop" Janos Peter of Hungary, who became a church official on December 8, 1949, hadn't performed ecclesiastical functions or been in a pulpit since—and was said to be one of the few clergymen who ever saw Stalin personally.31 In fact, says a source in the State Department, Peter apparently is not only a Communist—but a member of the Hungarian secret police.32 Authorities also said Bishop Peter was the only leading Hungarian churchman who received a payment of 4,000 forints ($400) monthly from the Communist government. The payment is known as a 'supplement for danger' and is generally paid to the police and soldiers on special missions. . . .33

And there is more. "According to these officials, Bishop Peter 'lured back to Hungary' ranking clergymen so that the Communist regime could 'discredit former anti-Communist religious leaders' who had fled Hungary." 34 Government investigator J. B. Matthews said in a speech in Chicago, for instance, a few days before the Council convened, that Peter once went to Cairo, on orders of the Soviet secret police, and induced an anti-Communist to return home by promising that no reprisals would be taken. Sure enough, the victim was grabbed and murdered by Peter's employers. The victim was "Bishop" Peter's brother.35 So these Socialist "clergymen" weren't clergymen at all. They were simply eleven Marxist agents with their collars on backwards, in accordance with Stalin's highly successful theory that most people will take from a clergyman what will make them mad as hell coming from a civilian. The real Polish, Hungarian and Czechoslovakian clergymen were, as always, either dead, or in the underground or somewhere in Siberia. So to admit these secret policemen to the United States to discuss Christianity in Hungary in 1954, was exactly the
same thing—there just isn't any difference—as it would have been in 1943 to admit some Gestapo officials dressed as rabbis, who wanted to explain to meetings of Hadassah how splendidly the Jews were doing in Germany! Which is why so 247

many Christians, and Americans in general, were so strenuously opposed to the admission of these agents of the secret police. Many people were thoroughly aware that the true purpose

of these secret policemen was not only to tell Americans how wonderful things were in the Soviet jails and their prison house of nations, but, of supreme importance, to legitimize
the theft, and demoralize the resistance, of Eastern Europe,

by going home with bales of stories, with photographs for proof, of how well they had been received by the government that is supposed to be leading the fight against Communism. Congressman Alvin Bentley, for instance, said in a speech
that the admission of these religious impersonators would be

"only a crushing blow to the hopes of those millions of antiCommunists behind the Iron Curtain who look longingly to

the free world for the day of their liberation," and would be "an affront upon those other Czech and Hungarian religious heroes who attempted to oppose the Communists and who suffered imprisonment or worse as a result. . . ." 36 And Dulles, of course, was aware of all this.
On November 17, 1953, the National Council of

others, deftly arranged for Eisenhower to speak.37

Churches, which as we have seen is a Marxist front, held a national board luncheon in Washington, D.C., at which agents Oxnam, Mackay and John Foster Dulles, among a few

On the next day, agent Oxnam was received by the President at the White House.38 On December 16, 1953, Oxnam sent a letter to all the pastors under his jurisdiction: I am happy to say that several conferences with Mr. John Foster Dulles, to whom the church owes an increasing debt of gratitude, have resulted in reasonable assurances that the delegates to the coming Assembly of the World Council of Churches will be admitted without difficulty. . . .39 And lo—It came to pass! In July, a month before the Assembly convened, we learn of the Dulles ruling that the eleven criminals will be admitted. Sure, says the statement issued by the State Department, sure, these preachers may very well have sold out to the
Reds. But, reported The New York Times:

Freedom of religion has always been basic to our way of life. Clearly, the spiritual foundation on which this nation rests is too strong to be adversely affected by any proCommunist activities in which this small group of delegates

from Communist-dominated engage.40



attempt to

Observe. The Department is perfectly aware, in fact says so itself, that at least one of these thugs is a member of the secret police. It is perfectly aware that they aren't real clergymen at all. It admits that once here they will naturally engage in Communist activities. And yet conservative Republican anti-Communist Dulles decides to admit them. You see, he says, the experience could very possibly have a "beneficial effect" on them! 41 The Assembly opened in the usual way. The Times report continued:
In his sermon, Bishop Oxnam struck the keynote of the World Council when he declared that "we dare not identify the Gospel of Christ with any historically conditioned political, social or economic system." 42

In other words: Reject Capitalism! And two days later, fellow agent Peter—of the secret police—told the WCC Assembly that Christians everywhere should "courageously and resolutely" announce their independence from "all social systems." 43 There were some other interesting developments. Eisenhower addressed the meeting at Evanston and he and Dulles sat on the platform with the Communist thugs. You will remember that as managing director of Operation Keelhaul, Eisenhower was thoroughly familiar with matters of Czech and Hungarian civil liberties. The thugs were welcomed and addressed as "brothers." They were invited to speak in churches and seminaries. They doubled their strength on the Central Committee, which runs the WCC between assemblies. Jan Chabada of Czechoslovakia and Karl Kotula of Poland were added to Hromadka and Laszlo Papp of Hungary. And finally, we learn from Bundy: Because they were so graciously entertained as house guests of the United States, while millions of oppressed people languished in Communist prisons and slave-labor camps, these men were able to go back to their own countries boasting that they were received with open arms by the country which claims to be the greatest bulwark against Communism in the world. Can any sane Christian fail to see what this propaganda 249

has done to the people in the underground and in the resistance movements behind the Iron Curtain? . . .44 In fact the aftermath was even more revealing. It seems that a year later, in 1955, the criminals running the Reformed Theological Academy of Budapest issued doctorates of divinity to agents Oxnam and Mackay. Mackay couldn't make it and accepted his degree in absentia. But Bromley went to Budapest in September and got his in person.45 One year later, of course, the Hungarians overthrew the Socialist "government," including the thugs masquerading as clergymen. "Bishop" Veto, for instance, who had been elected to the Central Committee of WCC, was forced to resign from the Lutheran Church. "Bishop" Bereczky, winner of the highly coveted Hungarian Communists' Order of Labor, was thrown out of the Hungarian Reformed Church. And secret policeman Peter, who had co-starred with Dulles in Evanston, Illinois, was naturally removed from office too. Even the "liberal" Christian Century was forced to admit that these sleazy thugs weren't religious leaders at all, but "false bishops" who had been "foisted" by the Socialists on the Hungarian people.46 So what conservative Republican anti-Communist Dulles had done, in short, was to promise a campaign for the "liberation" of Eastern Europe—and then to not only break his promise, but do everything in his power to perpetuate the enslavement.

1. John Foster Dulles, War, Peace and Change, (New York, Harper & Brothers, 1939), p. 42.

2. New York Times, August 27, 1952, p. 15. 3. Sherman Adams, Firsthand Report (New York, Harper & Bros., 1961), p. 92. 4. Robert J. Donovan, Eisenhower: The Inside Story (New York, Harper & Bros., 1956), p. 48. 5. Adams, op. cit., p. 93. 6. Loc. cit. 7. Loc. cit. 8. L. Brent Bozell, "National Trends," National Review, January 11, 1956, p. 14. 9. Joseph C. Harsch, "John Foster Dulles: a very complicated man," Harper's Magazine, Vol. 213, No. 1276, September, 1956, p. 31ff. 10. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 34, No. 2, January, 1956. See p. 187. 11. William E. Jenner, "America's Case Against Secretary 250

12. James Burnham, "The Dulles Record: An Appraisal," National Review, May 9, 1959, p. 44. 13. Newsweek, Vol. 44, No. 18, November 1, 1954, p. 42. 14. Loc. cit. 15. Bryton Barron, Inside the State Department (New York, Comet Press Books, 1956), p. 47. 16. US News & World Report, Vol. 38, No. 12, March 25, 1955, p. 48. 17. Barron, op. cit., p. 16. 18. New Bedford (Massachusetts), Standard-Times, December 19, 1955. Quoted by Barron, op. cit., p. 48. 19. Chicago Tribune (editorial), June 19, 1956. Quoted by Barron, op. cit., p. 56. 20. Newsweek, Vol. 44, No. 18, November 1, 1954, p. 42. 21. Quoted by Barron, op. cit., pp. 174-75. 22. National Review, January 11, 1956, p. 14. 23. Donovan, op. cit., p. 37. 24. Barron, op. cit., p. 104. 25. Bryton Barron, The State Department: Blunders or Treason? (Springfield, Virginia, Crestwood Books, 1965), p. 43. 26. Barron, Inside the State Department, op. cit., pp. 21, 105. 27. The testimony referred to is in Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Internal Security, Senate, State Department Security—1963-65, 89th Cong., first sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1965). 28. Fort Lauderdale (Florida) News, January 7, 1966. 29. Edgar C. Bundy, Collectivism in the Churches, (Wheaton (Illinois), The Church League of America, 1958), pp. 211-12. 30. Ibid., pp. 223-24. 31. New York Times, August 19, 1954, p. 18. 32. Ibid., July 21, 1954, p. 15. 33. Ibid., August 19, 1954, p. 18. 34. Loc. cit. 35. Bundy, op. cit., p. 221. 36. Congressional Record, July 22, 1954. Quoted by Bundy, op. cit., pp. 327-28. 37. Bundy, op. cit., p. 219. 38. Loc. cit. 39. Ibid., p. 220. 40. New York Times, July 18, 1954, p. 6. 41. Loc. cit. 42. Ibid., August 16, 1954, p. 11. 43. Ibid., August 18, 1954, p. 27. 44. Bundy, op. cit., p. 224. 45. Ibid., p. 227. 46. The Christian Century, Vol. 73, No. 46, November 14, 1956, p. 1317. 251

Dulles," American Mercury, Vol. 82, No. 387, April, 1956, p. 68ff.

. . . He has appeared to be the crusading knight bearing the cross of lightcousness on his shield, his sword upraised against the foe and his voice calling for the charge. But if your glance descends from this stirring picture, you notice that the charger he bestrides is ambling placidly in the opposite direction.1
Joseph C. Harsch

Chapter Seventeen: MASSIVE

ON APRIL 16, 1953, Eisenhower declared that an armistice in Korea which merely released aggressive armies for increased attacks on Indochina "would be a fraud." And in a speech in New York some time later, Dulles explained that after the armistice, the Chinese Communists had indeed "stepped up their aid to their Communist allies in IndoChina." So as Manly points out, what Eisenhower had said would be a fraud, was exactly what happened, as Dulles agreed.2 On January 12, 1954, as the early tragedy of Vietnam— which we're now apt to forget—approached a climax, Dulles unveiled the policy of "the deterrent of massive retaliatory power," in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations. He explained that we would maintain "a great capacity to retaliate instantly, by means and at times of our own choosing." 3 Indeed, he really turned on the "anti-Communism." On March 29, 1954, for instance, he explained in a speech at the Overseas Press Club: "Under the conditions of today, the imposition on Southeast Asia of the political system of Communist Russia and its Chinese Communist ally, by whatever means, would be a grave threat to the whole free community. . . ." 4 Which sounds perfectly fine, of course, except that we should logically ask whether the use by this master advocate of the phrase "under the conditions of today" meant that under the conditions of tomorrow, the imposition on South252

east Asia of the political system of Communist Russia would be perfectly all right. Said British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden,

. . . Mr. Dulles then told our Ambassador that the best hope was to compel China to desist from aid to the Vietminh by the threat of military action. He said that we possessed a military superiority in the area now which we might not have in a few years' time. So if a warning was not heeded, we should now be in a position to put our threats into effect. Military action involved risks, but the risk of letting Indo-China go was greater. . . .5
Eden tells of a meeting with Dulles in London on April 11, at which the Master Statesman stressed the strategic importance of Indochina and said that some aircraft-carriers had already been moved from Manila toward the Indochina coast.6 The Socialists had been warned, in short, that aggression might be answered with "massive retaliation." On the evening of April 23, at an official dinner in Paris, Dulles told Eden of a telegram that had arrived from General Navarre to the French government, reporting on the situation at Dien Bien Phu. This was an isolated post near the Chinese border, which had been under siege for weeks. Day after increasingly incredible day, a small garrison of French soldiers withstood the suicide attacks of many thousands of Socialist troops. It was an electrifying performance, as you may recall. Tired as the French were of the war, their pride in country firmly reappeared. Around the world, Dien Bien Phu became a symbol of victory over Socialist slavery. And now General Navarre reported that only an immediate American air strike could save the situation. The French told the British that we already had offered sixty bombers, which would operate from Manila, and that an American general and ten officers had visited Dien Bien Phu to study the situation.7 Nevertheless, Dulles refused. There was no American raid at Dien Bien Phu. The Master Statesman explained that we would not intervene unless the French announced the independence of the Indochinese states, and we could be assured of reliable allies, which was the new Dulles policy of "united action."

But in Mandate for Change, Eisenhower—or whoever actually wrote this one—explains that Britain was reluctant to get into the act. 253

... In a conference with Anthony Eden, Foster told him, unequivocally, that major combat action by United States forces in Indochina would need the consent of Congress, but that Congress would be more amenable if assured that Britain agreed to participate in unified action. . . .8 We simply couldn't intervene, says Eisenhower, unless we were part of a "coalition to include the other free nations of Southeast Asia, the Philippines, and the British Commonwealth," and so, on the evening of April 23, he says, he "agreed that Foster's position should stand unchanged. There would be no intervention without allies." 9 Indeed, on page after page of the Eisenhower opus, we are told of the overwhelming importance of Dulles' requirements. Eisenhower says he wrote to General Gruenther at NATO at the time, as follows: As you know, you and I started more than three years ago trying to convince the French that they could not win the Indo-China war and particularly could not get real American support in that region unless they would unequivocally pledge independence to the Associated States upon the achievement of military victory. Along with this—indeed as a corollary to it—this Administration has been arguing that no Western power can go to Asia militarily, except as one of a concert of powers, which concert must include local Asiatic peoples.10 And he says the same thing still again, in response to a Gruenther letter of June 8.11 These arguments are, as usual, a complete fraud. As early as October 1953, in an article recounting the consummate cleverness of Dulles's ideas, we read as follows in Time magazine:

. . . Under Dulles' pressure France also gave assurance of independence to the native states of Laos, Cambodia and Viet Nam. This meant that Indo-Chinese nationalists were no longer faced with a choice between Communism and colonialism. Result: new hope for winning the seven-yearold Indo-China war and stopping the Communist advance into Southeast Asia.12 And we can be absolutely sure that this is true. For, as we see, it appeared in Time magazine. Then on April 29, 1954, well before Eisenhower's answer to the Gruenther letter of June 8, we are told by The New York Times that 254

France and Vietnam signed today a joint declaration of agreement for the 'total independence' of Vietnam. The declaration was intended chiefly to satisfy the United States, which has been pressing France to grant full independence to the Associated States of Indochina in connection with the conference at Geneva.13

In fact, in the very same aforementioned Mandate for Change—only four pages away, in fact, from his first letter to General Gruenther—the same Eisenhower writes as follows:
In Paris, Mr. Dulles received assurances from M. Laniel and M. Reynaud that the French had promised total independence to the Associated States and that France would keep its word. A treaty had recently been signed with Laos giving the Laotians full satisfaction. . . . The Vietnamese had been satisfied.14
Only three pages away, he says that when Dulles arrived in Paris, prior to the Geneva Conference:

. . . Bidault implied that while he had in the past opposed internationalizing the war, he would now favor it if United States action would save Dien Bien Phu. . . .15

And on the same page, he says he "was informally told, at the time, that both Australia and New Zealand were ready to listen to any proposals the United States government might make to them for collective action for entering the Indochina war," but that instead of encouraging him, "this would have been a very difficult situation for us," because even with the cooperation of France, Australia, New Zealand, the Vietnamese themselves, and conceivably—if they had been asked —the South Koreans and the free Chinese, who knew what it was all about, he still would have been "most unhappy" without the participation of "sturdy Britain." 16 So what was really happening here was that while the French were falling all over themselves trying to accede to every requirement Dulles could dream up, the Master Statesman at the very same time was pretending they weren't doing so, and was in fact loudly mouthing off about how terrible the French were in refusing to grant independence and to internationalize the war. He was deliberately wasting time worrying our allies with conditions that not only were phony—because he never intended to honor them at all—but picayune, because time was What Indochina needed most. 255

It is important to record that the point to all this isn't that we should have intervened at Dien Bien Phu. It is perfectly possible to argue, and many competent and honest people have done so—maybe correctly—that we should never have intervened in the area at all. The point here is simply to show that as usual Dulles talked a good brand of "anti-Communism," by promising to intervene in time if certain conditions were met, but refused to intervene when they were met; and that he deliberately wasted the time the Communists needed in order to win—show that, as usual, his policy was a fraud. So on May 8, Dien Bien Phu fell. Afterward, says Eisenhower, he and Dulles were still talking about American intervention, but they were still worried about "the implication of going into Indochina without British cooperation, even though New Zealand and Australia might participate. Such action would inevitably tend to weaken our normally close and highly valued relationship with the British. " Instead, he says, they provided "more aid," because: "Even if others were reluctant to act, we could not afford to sit on the side lines and do nothing. . . ." 17 On May 11, while the negotiations in Geneva were still going on, conservative Republican anti-Communist Dulles said in Washington that Indochina, including Laos and Cambodia, was not essential to the defense of Southeast Asia.18 Says Hilaire du Berrier: To Monsieur Bidault, informed of the Dulles statements while still at the conference table, they had the effect of a knife between the shoulder blades. Notice had been served that come what might, America would not intervene. Behind Bidault the support of a war-weary France dropped alarmingly. Britain knew, France knew, and the negotiating Reds knew that the game was over. . . .19 On June 11, 1954, we learn that the United States has turned down a French request that the United States provide planes and crews to fly about 3,000 additional troops from North Africa to Indochina. 20 And so on June 18, Pierre Mendes-France, a Socialist, became French prime minister, and the armistice was signed on July 21. Dulles publicly "dissociated" the United States from the settlement—probably because of the lingering stench of the truce he had arranged in Korea the year before—but he does admit that we "acquiesced" in it.21 256

What Dulles had acquiesced in was the delivery to the Socialists of all of Vietnam north of the 17th parallel and about 12 million succulent people. It was, said Hanson W. Baldwin, a "major victory" for the Reds.22 Says The New York Times, "under the accord, Communist agents are free to roam Vietnam at will and the country may not import arms and foregoes defensive alliances. "It was learned that the Vietnam government on examining the document had advised Allied diplomats in Saigon that it would be powerless to resist Communist expansion militarily or politically." 23 Dulles now got involved with an ambitious politico named Ngo dinh Diem. On May 2, 1955, for instance, we learn that officials in Washington are supporting Diem.24 Four days later, we read, the State Department again says Diem is its man, and that it would be perfectly fine with the Department if Emperor Bao Dai were removed. The official declaration is approved by John Foster Dulles.25 And on May 11, we are told that Dulles has issued a virtual ultimatum to France that she support the native South Vietnamese Government of Premier Ngo dinh Diem and if necessary withdraw all or part of her 90,000 French Expeditionary Force. Dulles used stern language shorn of diplomatic euphemisms to enlist France's earnest support of Diem as the West's only visible hope of saving Indochina from Communist envelopment. . . .26 The curious thing about this is that the very next sentence in the story reads as follows:
He also warned that the new Vietnam native army is still so far from being ready for combat after eighteen months of training by the United States Army that it could not defend the country if France does withdraw her forces.

Which then raises the question of why France should get out. Who was this man on whose behalf Dulles issued virtual ultimatums to our oldest ally—France—this man who was our "only visible hope of saving Indochina from Communist envelopment?" Well, in 1957 Ngo dinh Diem visited America with an individual named Vu van Thai, who was spending our money in South Vietnam. It seems that before the Geneva agreement of 1954, he had also been an important Communist official, 257

and in 1957 did some business with Minh Tan Press, a Communist printing plant in Paris at 7 rue Guenegaud. . . . Minh Tan Press was run by Vu van Thai's old comrade in arms, Nguyen ngoc Bich, the Communist engineer who sabotaged bridges in Cochin China for Ho chi Minh during the war against the French. Vu van Thai flew to America on October 3, 1958, to talk to high State Department and foreign aid officials in Washington. . . . No mention of this trip was made in the American press. (Officials controlling such information were well acquainted with Vu van Thai's record.) . . .27

There was Ho thong Minh, Diem's minister of national defense, and a former army supplier for Ho chi Minh. There was Minister of National Economy Nguyen ngoc Thos, who was arrested on October 25, 1945, as a Communist. And there was public works minister Tran le Quang, a former Ho chi Minh collaborator who had served as president of the Association of Vietminh (Communist) Students in France.28 Tran chanh Thanh was minister of propaganda and information. Before 1954, he had administered "justice" for the Vietminh in eighteen provinces, "and had done it so brutally that his name was still used to frighten children. . . ." 29 Then there was the Minister of Reconstruction and Planning, Hoang Hung, a "former" Vietminh. Says du Berrier:

. . . Nguyen van Tarn told this author that, when he was director-general of national security, he once raided Hung's home and found the cellar used for a Vietminh arms cache. After loading a truck with guns and Communist tracts, Tam decided to investigate the house next door, which Hung had built on his property and rented to a friend. The friend turned out to be Le van Liem, a leading Saigon terrorist for the Vietminh. . . .30

And C. L. Sulzberger writes that the Revolutionary Committee is run by six men, who include Col. Ho Han-son, who "was political commissar for a Vietminh regiment," and Doang Trung-con, who "belonged to various Communist organizations in France. . . ."31 In the immediate family, there was Diem's brother Ngo dinh Can, who lived, we read, "like a feudal warlord, spreading terror with mass arrests and summary executions, shaking down businessmen for his political party and requesting officers, desirous of promotion to hold out monthly 'donations' from their men...." 32 258

And there was brother Ngo dinh Nhu, who explained: "We are working towards a socialistic state." 33 Which explains the presence of Albert Pham ngoc Thao, who in 1949 married a militant Communist, and thereby also became the brother-in-law of a Vietminh professor named Pham Thieu. By 1954, Thao had served for eight years as Ho chi Minh's chief of intelligence in Cochin China, and was therefore eminently qualified to get right to work as the head of Brother Nhu's secret police, which included more than 70,000 informers. Says Du Berrier:
. . . Every business office, every ministry, every group, and practically every household had within it somewhere a Nhu agent, informing on his neighbors, his superiors and his fellow workmen. No man dared make a move or breathe a word that might be distorted by an informer seeking to gain 'face' and advancement. Nationalists claimed that Thao, with his 1946-1954 Communist intelligence experience and contacts to draw on, was able to track down, imprison and ruin any non-Communist opposition to Diem. At the same time he frustrated their attempts to rally deserters from the Red camp. Those wishing to quit Ho chi Minh and go home were discouraged from doing so by the spectacle of their friends being arrested by Thao and other former Communists in Diem's government the minute they returned for acts they had committed while under the orders of those same men. . . .34

Furthermore, says Joseph Alsop, Nhu "had begun negotiations for a deal with the North Vietnamese Communists in the last months before his death. . . ." 35 He apparently began them, in fact, in 1954; for Thao kept in touch with his brother, Gaston, a Ho chi Minh official, and with his father, who headed the Vietminh League in Paris.36 And in July 1966, we learn that Nhu's widow "has published a long interview in France that is both sympathetic to Vietnamese Communists and violently anti-American." The Communists, she says, "are Vietnamese like us, and nationalists like us. And like us they seek justice. The world condemns them only because to get there they employ criminal means." She says in fact "that it was at her suggestion that her husband was having secret contacts with representatives of North Vietnam and that he was on the point of signing a peace 259

treaty when the Americans, frightened, deliberately launched a coup d'etat and had the brothers murdered." 37 So we were told all along, weren't we, that the Diem gang was fiercely fighting the Socialist invaders, when also all along, as we see now, the Diems were actually killing and jailing their anti-Socialist opponents. This is the gang to which conservative Republican antiCommunist John Foster Dulles forced the French to deliver the country. And there is more. It happens that it was conservative Republican anti-Communist John Foster Dulles who arranged the whole mess in Vietnam today. Let's go back and have a look. It seems that while the French were begging for American help, Dulles began to spend valuable time saying they could get it only after the conclusion of still another treaty, creating still another "international alliance," composed of a Southeast Asian "regional grouping." 38 These regional groupings have an interesting history. You will remember that they were recommended as stage two of the plan to create world Socialism presented by the Communist International in 1936. In 1939, a gentleman by the name of Clarence K. Streit, who was an employee of The New York Times, published a book called Union Now, recommending the creation of regional groupings, which would lead to eventual world government.39 In the next year, along with two others, he formed Federal Union, Inc., to work for the goals outlined in the book. And in 1941, he published in another book: Democrats cannot . . . quarrel with Soviet Russia or any other nation because of its economic collectivism, for democracy itself introduced the idea of collective machinery into politics. It is a profound mistake to identify democracy and Union necessarily or entirely with either capitalist or socialist society, with either the method of individual or collective enterprise. There is room for both of these methods in democracy. . . . Democracy not only allows mankind to choose freely between capitalism and collectivism, but it includes marxist governments, parties and press. . . .40
It is important to remember that until July 22, 1941, the year Streit published this book, Socialist Russia was an ally of Socialist Germany, and had helped begin the Second World War by participating in the rape and dismemberment of Poland. 260

On January 5, 1942, Federal Union published a petition in major newspapers, urging Congress to adopt a joint resolution favoring immediate union of the United States with several specified foreign nations. Conservative Republican anti-Communist John Foster Dulles naturally signed it.41 The resolution he wanted Congress to adopt called for a regional government which would impose a common citizenship; tax citizens directly; make and enforce all laws; coin and borrow money; have the only armed forces; and admit new members. Conservative Republican anti-Communist John Foster Dulles, naturally, had written it. 42 Congress naturally refused to adopt it, and in May 1949, Dulles was telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that a regional grouping called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should be ratified and should be operated "not as a military instrument but as a step in a political evolution that has behind it a long and honorable history and, before it, a great and peaceful future." 43 What he probably had in mind was Article 2 of the Treaty, which says that the parties to it "will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them"; and so Streit immediately formed the Atlantic Union Committee, which of course is tax-exempt, and the purpose of which, says its charter, is to use NATO—which had been sold to Americans as a defensive military alliance—as the basis for the proposed regional government, which would operate "within the framework of the United Nations." Indeed, says Streit elsewhere: "Atlantic Union should be a member of the United Nations. It could thus conduct its relations with other nations until such time as true world government were possible." 44 It seems, as chance would have it, that Articles 51 and 52 of the United Nations charter encourage the formation of these regional groupings. So in 1949, and almost yearly thereafter until it was passed, AUC introduced in Congress a resolution calling for an international convention to arrange an Atlantic Federal Union, which, says Streit, . . . would lessen the political importance of the President of the United States and of United States Senators and Congressmen. Certain powers they now have over the citizens would be transferred to the Executive and Senators of the Atlantic Union Government. . . .45 261

For instance, in 1948, Council on Foreign Relations member Elmo Roper, president of Atlantic Union, in an opus called The Goal is Government of All the World says: . . . Such a nation would have the right to conduct foreign relations, maintain armed forces, issue currency, regulate commerce and communications between states in the Union, and grant Union citizenship. The Union must have the power to tax and to uphold its own bill of rights. . . .46 A year later, conservative Republican anti-Communist John Foster Dulles explained that "As a Senator, I shall vote for the Atlantic Union resolution. I have already indicated to the proposers of the resolution my sympathy with their purpose, and I repeat I intend to confirm this by vote when the resolution is before the Senate for action." 47 Later, in November 1952, soon after his appointment as Secretary of State, conservative Republican anti-Communist John Foster Dulles sent a telegram of congratulations to an Atlantic Union meeting in Buffalo. 48 And in September 1954, after Vietnam was safely divided between Socialist dictator Ho and Socialist dictator Diem, he arranged the next of these regional groupings: the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization. It is the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, says Dean Rusk, under which we are operating in Vietnam today.49 Says C. L. Sulzberger: Dulles fathered SEATO with the deliberate purpose, as he explained to me, of providing the U.S. President with legal authority to intervene in Indochina. When Congress approved SEATO it signed the first of a series of blank checks yielding authority over Vietnam policy.50

You will remember that earlier in the year, in a conversation with Eden, the Master Statesman had used as the reason for his refusal to save Dien Bien Phu, his solemn concern for the constitutional provision that Congress alone can declare war. And this raises the question, does it not, of why Congress couldn't have provided the legal authority for the President to intervene in Indochina—simply by exercising its constitutional power. Why take that power away from the Congress, and therefore from the people? If the intervention of American troops in Indochina was so essential to American security, so right, why wouldn't the people be eager to intervene? 262

What, in fact, is the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization actually about? Article I of the Treaty says the parties agree "to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." In fact Article IV, paragraph 1, reads in full as follows: "Each Party recognizes that aggression by means of armed attack in the treaty area against any of the Parties or against any State or territory which the Parties by unanimous agreement may hereafter designate, would endanger its own peace and safety, and agrees that it will in that event act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. Measures taken under this paragraph shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations." Observe. The measures taken will immediately be reported to the Security Council of the United Nations—a permanent member of which, of course, is Soviet Russia. You will remember in fact that the man who conducts United Nations military operations—with which SEATO military operations, according to the Treaty, have to be consistent —has always been, is now, and, if the agreement can be made to stick, always will be, a Communist. It is interesting to note that in quoting Article IV, paragraph 1, of the SEATO treaty, as the reason for our presence in Vietnam now, either Dean Rusk or E. W. Kenworthy of The New York Times was careful to omit the final sentence.51 Somebody apparently doesn't want us boobs to know that our military operations in Vietnam are immediately being reported to the UN. So what had happened here, in short, was that America had just finished fighting a war in Korea which it had no chance to win—because its operations were reported to and conducted by its Communist enemy—and a year later, conservative Republican anti-Communist John Foster Dulles deviously forces us into a war in Vietnam under the very same conditions. Indeed, just before leaving the Geneva Conference, Dulles told C. L. Sulzberger:

Were there an operational Southeast Asia alliance with France and the United States as members, Congress would have to approve American participation (in the Vietnam war). Then, perhaps, in a fashion similar to Korea, the United States might be able to intervene.52 263

Congress would have to, because as the Master Statesman had told the American Bar Association only two years before, treaties can cut across the Constitution—whether the people and the Congress like it or not. So it was conservative Republican anti-Communist John Foster Dulles who arranged for Lyndon Johnson to demand sacrifice upon tax increase sacrifice in this purposeless war— purposeless so far as American interests are concerned. It all will become clear when we are issued our ration books.

1. Joseph C. Harsch, "John Foster Dulles: a very complicated man," Harper's Magazine, Vol. 213, No. 1276, September, 1956, p. 34. 2. Chesly Manly, The UN Record (Chicago, Henry Regnery Company, 1955), p. 55. 3. Quoted in Marquis Childs, Eisenhower: Captive Hero (New York, Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1958), p. 198. 4. US News & World Report, Vol. 36, No. 15, April 9, 1954, p. 71. 5. Anthony Eden, Full Circle (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1960), pp. 102-03. 6. Ibid., p. 106. 7. Ibid., p. 112. 8. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change (Garden City, Doubleday & Company, 1963), p. 351. 9. Ibid., pp. 347, 351. 10. Ibid., p. 352. 11. Ibid., p. 363. 12. Time, Vol. 62, No. 15, October 12, 1953, p. 21. 13. New York Times, April 29, 1954, p. 1. 14. Eisenhower, op. cit., p. 348. 15. Ibid., p. 349. 16. Ibid., p. 352. 17. Ibid., pp. 358-59. 18. Newsweek, Vol. 47, No. 4, January 23, 1956, p. 90. Or, New York Times, May 12, 1954, p. 1. 19. Hilaire du Berrier, Background to Betrayal: The Tragedy of Vietnam (Boston, Western Islands, 1965), p. 4. 20. New York Times, June 11, 1954, pp. 1, 3. 21. US News & World Report, Vol. 38, No. 8, February 25, 1955, p. 95. 22. New York Times, July 21, 1954, p. 4. 23. Ibid., July 24, 1954, p. 1. 24. Ibid., May 2, 1955, p. 1. 25. Ibid., May 7, 1955, p. 1. 264

26. Los Angeles Times, May 11, 1955. Quoted by du Berrier, op. cit., pp. 109-10. 27. du Berrier, op. cit., pp. 75-76. 28. Ibid., pp. 74-75. 29. Ibid., p. 77. 30. Ibid., p. 78. 31. New York Times, May 4, 1955, p. 28. 32. du Berrier, op. cit., p. 147. 33. Peter Kalischer, Collier's, July 6, 1956; quoted by du Berrier, op. cit., p. 36. 34. du Berrier, op. cit., pp. 76-17. 35. New York Herald Tribune, May 15, 1964, p. 22. 36. du Berrier, op. cit., p. 161. 37. New York Times, July 19, 1966, p. 5. 38. Ibid., April 25, 1954, p. 1. 39. Clarence K. Streit, Union Now: a proposal for a federal union of the democracies of the North Atlantic (New York, Harper & Bros., 1939). 40. Clarence K. Streit, Union Now With Britain, (New York, Harper & Bros., 1941), p. 192. 41. Dan Smoot, The Invisible Government, (Boston, Western Islands, 1965), p. 84. 42. Smoot, op. cit., p. 84. 43. New York Times, May 5, 1949, p. 1. 44. Look, Vol. 13, No. 12, June 7, 1949, p. 25. 45. Committee on Foreign Relations, Senate, Hearings on S. Con. 12, A Resolution Relating to the Calling of an Atlantic Exploratory Convention, 84th Cong., first sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1955), p. 32. 46. Ibid., p. 156. 47. Ibid., p. 193. 48. John T. Flynn, "Mr. Dulles and 'Hands Across the Sea,' " American Mercury, Vol. 77, October, 1953, p. 28. 49. New York Times, November 27, 1966, section 1, p. 5. 50. Ibid., March 2, 1966, p. 40. 51. Ibid., November 27, 1966, section 1, p. 5. 52. New York Times News Service, Wichita Eagle, January 13, 1967, p. 4A.


. . . We must always remember that the free nations of the Western Pacific and Southeast Asia will quickly lose their freedom if they think that our love of peace means peace at any price. We must, if occasion offers, make it clear that we are prepared to stand firm and, if necessary, meet hostile force with the greater force that we possess.1
John Foster Dulles

Chapter Eighteen: WINK AT THE BRINK
AS WE have seen, John Foster Dulles had played, in earlier days, a highly influential, indirect role, by way of Freddie Field and Arthur Dean, in the delivery of the Chinese people to Mao Tse-tung. In 1950, even before Mao could spit out the bones, conservative Republican anti-Communist Dulles was trying to get him into the United Nations: Some of the present member nations, and others that might become members, have governments that are not representative of the people. But if in fact they are 'governments'—that is, if they 'govern'—then they have a power which should be represented in any organization that purports to mirror world reality. If the Communist government of China in fact proves its ability to govern China without serious domestic resistance, then it, too, should be admitted to the United Nations. . . .2 This of course well may be some highly sophisticated diplomatic theory and simply over our heads. We should be ready to admit that, but it seems to say, does it not, that the more of a dictatorship a government is, the more it qualifies for membership in the United Nations. An amateur dictator like, say, Duvalier of Haiti, shouldn't be admitted, because he is always being bothered by domestic resistance, but a real professional like Mao Tse-tung, who pretends he isn't, should be admitted right away! In September 1950, the American delegation to the Gen266

eral Assembly put the question of Formosa on the agenda, and member Dulles wrote a speech calling for a UN trusteeship—which naturally would mean the destruction of free China.3 And on January 13, 1951, the General Assembly's political committee approved a proposal—with the support of the American delegation—which offered Communist China both Formosa and a seat in the UN.4 Member Dulles did not protest. The China story also exposes still once more the many carpers who claim that Dulles had no sense of humor. In the Japanese Peace Treaty of 1951, as friend Dean Acheson's personal representative, Dulles had arranged that Japan surrender Formosa and the Pescadores, but neglected to cede them to the free Chinese government located there. And even funnier was the fact that, (although Chiang Kaishek had refused to cooperate either with the Communists or the Japanese; had fought the Japanese alone for more than four years before America got into it, and was our unshakeable ally for almost four years after), conservative Republican anti-Communist Dulles drafted and signed the Treaty with Japan without even talking to Chiang's government about it, or inviting a representative of that government to be present—and then Dulles apologized for it as an oversight! 5 When conservative Republican anti-Communist Dulles took over as Secretary of State, people naturally expected a dramatic change in our China policy. And sure enough, he cancelled the Truman order that had obliged the U.S. Seventh Fleet to protect the Communist mainland from the free Chinese troops.6 The world braced. Chiang, as you will recall, had been "unleashed." By the next year, 1954, writes Joseph C. Harsch, Washington "had begun to demobilize the Chinese Nationalist division which had tried to operate in northern Burma against the Chinese Communist southern flank." 7 And in December 1954, Dulles signed a mutual defense treaty with the Nationalists, in connection with which Chiang agreed, says Eisenhower, "that he would not conduct any offensive operations against the mainland either from Formosa or from his coastal positions, except in agreement with us. . . ." And this means, Eisenhower writes to Churchill, that "we are in a position to preclude what you refer to as the use of these offshore islands as 'bridgeheads for a Nationalist invasion of Communist China,' or as a base for 'sporadic 267

war against the mainland' or 'the invasion of the mainland of
China. . . .' " 8

So conservative Republican anti-Communist Dulles "unleashes" Chiang in 1953—to demonstrate dramatically that we are no longer protecting Mao—and a year later, as Donovan points out, he releashes Chiang, and we are once again protecting Mao.9 Indeed, says Harsch, Dulles's "operating policies began with a private explanation after Chiang Kai-shek had beer 'unleashed' that real United States policy in the Far East was one of 'disengagement' from the mainland of Asia." 10 Observe. Dulles's "declaratory policy"—for the benefit of patriotic Americans—is to encourage Chiang Kai-shek to advance, when all along, he tells the boys, he is really forcing Chiang to retreat. And by September 1958, he was saying in a press conference that a return to the mainland by the free Chinese was "highly hypothetical" and that the United States has "no commitment of any kind" to help them.11 The Master Statesman's "operating policy," was in fact not only to defend Mao—but to do what he could to destroy Chiang. In April 1953, for instance, we read, The Administration is casting about for a solution that would assure an independent Formosa. A possibility being considered is a United Nations trusteeship for that strategic island, with the creation of a Republic of Formosa as the ultimate goal.12 The White House naturally denied it—for the benefit of Americans—but we are told that according to reporters, the plan "was understood to have originated with Mr. Dulles. . . ."13 In November, Dulles said, . . . it would be out of order to consider the recognition of Communist China at this time but he implied that the United States might consider a change in this policy if the Peiping regime changed its aggresssive ways . . . [but] . . . it was technically possible for Red China to be brought into the United Nations General Assembly while Nationalist China still was sitting in the United Nations Security Council.14

And by the summer of 1955, Dulles had arranged regular meetings in Geneva between American and Chinese Commu268

nist Ambassadors. He had the world's press assuming that he "favored using the armed forces of the United States to put Chiang Kai-shek back in control of China," Harsch explains, "when all the while he actually was marching toward Geneva." 15 But most revealing of all, of course, is the chicken chow mein called the Formosa Resolution. On September 3, 1954, the Chinese Socialists began a heavy artillery barrage of Quemoy island off the China coast. There were three groups of these offshore islands; the Quemoys, the Matsus and, far to the north, the Tachens—all controlled by the free Chinese. It looked like the beginning of a Socialist offensive. Dulles naturally suggested that the business be taken to the Security Council, where he wanted a recommendation, says Eisenhower, "that military activity both against the islands and in their defense be suspended. . . ."16 Observe that Dulles seems to equate the military activity of the invading Socialists with the military activity of the free defenders. On January 10, 1955, Socialist planes raided the Tachens. A week later, Socialists troops grabbed the island of Ichiang, just seven miles north of the Tachens. Eisenhower recalls that "the time had come to draw the line." 17 And so Dulles recommended, and on January 24 Eisenhower sent to the Congress, a message asking for Presidential authority to use American armed force. This was the famous Formosa Resolution. The line was drawn. And Dulles later explained, as you may remember, that the Resolution took us to "the brink of war." 18 All that the Resolution said, in fact, was that the authority Would be used only if Communist military activities were "recognizable as parts of, or definite preliminaries to" an attack against Formosa and the Pescadores. Eisenhower wrote to Churchill at the time about the need to see a distinction "between an attack that has only as its objective the capture of an off-shore island and one that is primarily a preliminary movement to an all-out attack on Formosa." 19 In other words, if the Socialists give their word—we shall try not to laugh—that they have no interest at all in attacking Formosa, then they are perfectly welcome to the offshore islands. So the Formosa Resolution did draw a line, all right. But it 269

put the offshore islands on the Socialist side. It publicly announced that we would not respond to a Socialist attack. At the time, however, all the Chinese Socialist propaganda emphasized that it was Formosa, indeed, that they were after, and that the offshore islands were only part of the plan, which meant, as we see, that the Formosa Resolution would protect them, too. On January 28, the Formosa Resolution was passed by the Senate. On the next day, Eisenhower signed it. And the mighty Seventh Fleet steamed west under its authority. But when it arrived, it didn't turn its guns on the Chin coast where the Socialists were who were causing the trouble It simply evacuated the free Chinese from the Tachen is lands, left the islands to the waiting Socialists, and quickly slunk off. It seems that Chiang had been assured that if he complied the United States would help him defend Quemoy and the Matsus.20 Eisenhower explains that "even Chiang saw little value in holding the Tachens." 21 Which is obviously true—since Eisenhower said it—but late in January, when the evacuation of non-combatants began, we are told that "A high Nationalist official hinted that the Chinese Nationalist Army would soon follow out of the Tachens. He said bitterly, 'You don't have to guess (our intentions) now. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles has made it crystal clear the Tachen group is not vital.' " 22 And so still another area, psychologically vital to the free Chinese cause, was "disengaged" by Dulles and delivered to the Socialists. Joseph C. Harsch writes,

. . . The affair left people wondering whether the 'Resolution' was intended to protect the Chinese Nationalists in the Far East or to cover the Dulles flank on Capitol Hill. And was the Seventh Fleet spared from attack by Chinese Communist planes because of the much publicized 'Resolution,' or because urgent unpublicized advice sent from the State Department to Peking by way of London, Moscow, and New Delhi had explained that the fleet maneuver was solely intended for the evacuation of the islands? 23

The Formosa Resolution, in short, was the usual "anti270

Communist" publicity release which Dulles used to arrange our defeats. Furthermore The New York Times reported from a press conference in Ottawa in March 1955: "All that is needed, he said, is a commitment by Communist China not to use force in attempting to enforce its claims to the offshore islands of Quemoy and Matsu, the Pescadores or Formosa." Then, we are told, differences can be solved by negotiation. "Presumably what was in the Secretary's mind is that if the Soviet Union used its influence to restrain Communist China the United States would seek to convince Chiang Kai-shek that it was preferable to abandon Quemoy and the Matsu Islands as he did the Tachen Islands." 24 Consider. Dulles regards Russia, which has just gotten finished conducting a war against us in Korea, as a restraining influence. With Russia's help he wants to deliver still more territory to Socialist China. All that is needed is a commitment from the Socialists not to use force. In April, we are told that the State Department has changed its position and is willing to negotiate directly with Communist China.

Secretary of State Dulles . . . told his news conference this morning that Nationalist China would not necessarily have to be present at talks limited to the question of a cease-fire.25
So the free Chinese are a party to the dispute. They are the victims. They are supposed to be our allies. But conservative Republican anti-Communist John Foster Dulles is trying to negotiate only with the Socialists. And in May 1955, he reveals that we will not defend Quemoy and the Matsus unless they are attacked as part of a fullscale assault on Formosa, "an unlikely Communist strategy," says L. Brent Bozell.26 The question arises: Couldn't it be that Dulles was honestly worried, as usual, about the danger of war—world war? Couldn't it be that if he had genuinely taken the firm stance he claimed to be taking, the result would have been the "destruction of mankind" and the "incineration of the earth?" No, it couldn't. We wish that were the answer but it just couldn't be. For, at the very same time Dulles was arranging our defeat in the Formosa Strait, we were reading time after time of arrests and uprisings throughout Red China. In Shensi Province in the northwest, for instance, 200 people were charged with conspiring to "overthrow the people's state 271

power," and hand grenades, lithograph machines and "reactionary documents" were seized.27 At Huichang, Kiangs Province, in southern China, we read, the Reds have arrested an undisclosed number of "counter-revolutionaries," who according to the Hsinhua (New China) news agency belong to an "align-with-Taiwan anti-Communist guerrilla corps" formed in August 1954. "Members of the groups were accused of 'armed looting,' lighting fires to guide Chinese Nationalist planes, and plotting against the Peiping regime. They were arrested in the midst of an intensified crackdown on 'counter-revolutionaries' throughout Communist China." 28 In fact, in February 1955, military man Eisenhower writes to Churchill:

I do not believe that Russia wants war at this time—in fact, I do not believe that even if we became engaged in a serious fight along the coast of China, Russia would want to intervene with her own forces. . . .29
No, the only thing it can be, unfortunately—and as we see, the proof comes as always from the man's own mouth—is that Dulles's "operational policy" was always to advance the cause of Communist China.


1. Time, Vol. 65, No. 12, March 21, 1955, p. 17. 2. John Foster Dulles, War Or Peace (New York, The Macmillan Company, 1950), p. 190. 3. Chesly Manly, The UN Record (Chicago, Henry Regnery Company, 1955), p. 65. 4. Ibid., pp. 67-68. 5. Robert Welch, "We Pause to Remark," American Opinion, June, 1958, p. 26. 6. Time, Vol. 62, No. 15, October 12, 1953, p. 21. 7. Joseph C. Harsch, "John Foster Dulles: a very complicated man," Harper's Magazine, Vol. 213, No. 1276, September, 1956, p. 10. 8. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change (Garden City Doubleday & Company, 1963), p. 473. 9. Robert J. Donovan, Eisenhower: The Inside Story (New York, Harper & Bros. 1956), p. 303. 10. Harsch, op. cit., p. 32. 11. Deadline Data, September 28, 1958. 12. New York Times, April 9, 1953, p. 1. 13. Ibid., April 11, 1953, p. 4. 272

14. Ibid., November 10, 1953, p. 13. 15. Quoted by William E. Tenner, "America's Case Against Secretary Dulles," American Mercury, Vol. 82, No. 387, April, 1956, p. 71. 16. Eisenhower, op. cit., p. 464. 17. Ibid., p. 466. 18.James Shepley, "How Dulles Averted War," Life, Vol. 40, No. 3, January 16, 1956. 19. Eisenhower, op. cit., pp. 468, 471. 20. L. Brent Bozell, "National Trends," National Review, January 11, 1956, p. 14. See also Eisenhower, op. cit., p. 467. 21. Eisenhower, op. cit., p, 467. 22. New York Times, January 22, 1955, p. 1. 23. Harsch, op. cit., p. 31. 24. New York Times, March 19, 1955, p. 1. 25. Ibid., April 27, 1955, p. 1. 26. Bozell, op. cit., p. 14. 27. New York Times, May 28, 1955, p. 1. 28. Ibid., July 3, 1955, p. 16. See also May 12, 1955, p. 6; June 4, 1955, p. 2; June 18, 1955, p. 3, for other incidents. 29. Eisenhower, op. cit., p. 471.


To those enduring enslavement, and to those inflicting it, we would make our position clear and firm. We, as a people, never have acquiesced and never will acquiesce in the enslavement of other peoples. . . . We do not accommodate ourselves to political settlements which are based upon contempt for the free will of peoples and which are imposed by the brutal occupation of alien armies or by revolutionary factions who serve alien masters.1

John Foster Dulles

Chapter Nineteen: THE "LIBERATION"

ON MAY 15, 1955, Dulles signed the Austrian Peace Treaty. True, the Russians had to fall back only 30 miles or so to the frontiers of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, while NATO had to fall back some 300 miles; moreover, Austria agreed to stay out of Western defense arrangements and to allow Communist political activity on her soil but no foreign bases, to prohibit military movement across her territory— which meant that the distance between NATO forces in Germany and Italy was increased some 450 miles; and Austria agreed to pay the Russians a ransom of 320 million dollarsin oil and manufactured goods, plus another 20 million if she wanted to redeem her Danubian shipping, seized by the Russians as "war booty"—but, to our great relief, in a television spectacular two days later, conservative Republican antiCommunist Dulles explained that the Treaty represented a basic change in Soviet policy! He said "it marks the first time that the Red armies will have turned their face in the other direction, and gone back since 1945." He perceived "a willingness to give greater freedom and liberty to the captive satellite peoples." It was possible, he said, "that the Soviet Union, after this experience of trying to buck everything, may be feeling that it may be more 274

convenient for them to conform to some of the rules and practices of a civilized world community." 2 Little more than a year later, on October 23, 1956, the entire population of Hungary rose in rebellion against the Socialist thugs. It was an amazing performance. It included the incredible spectacle of sixteen-year-old girls fighting and destroying Socialist tanks. An untrained band of ragged civilians succeeded in stopping the Russian Army. On October 27, we learn of the arrival in Budapest of Soviet First Deputy Premier Anastas I. Mikoyan.3 On November 3, the director of a Budapest hospital is reported to say that "Modern history has no equal to the Soviet barbarity here. They burned twenty ambulances coming to the aid of the wounded. They have killed or wounded half our personnel." Among the patients in the hospital, we are told, is Livia Czudarhely, nineteen, who asked a secret police truck for a lift home because she was carrying a heavy sack of food, and naturally was shot. So was Lajos Hajbu, who responded to a promise for amnesty by surrendering with twelve others. Only he and three other wounded were still alive. Then there was Wendel Markus, 72, who was shot, we are told, because he helped a woman carry potatoes and bread through a gate. And there was Josef Mikori, 17, who was crushed against a wall by a Socialist tank. Indeed, it seems that scores of other wounded and dying were caught unarmed as they stood in food lines.4 Also on November 3, we learn in a dispatch from the town of Gyor of the discovery of a secret crematory, used for victims of police interrogation, which "was equipped with technical facilities Hitler's Gestapo would have admired." 5 And Elie Abel reports the continuing presence in Budapest of Mikoyan, who among other things discussed the removal of Soviet troops from Hungary.6 As you may recall, the discussions apparently included the kidnap and subsequent murder, by the Socialists, of rebel commander Pal Maleter, who had come to negotiate under a flag of truce. And on November 4, of course, after having promised to leave the country, the reinforced Russians reinvaded and destroyed it. In fact on November 14, we learn of the mass deportation to Russia of Hungarian youths.7 And two days later: the mass deportations . . . continued. A report that not only boys and young men but also women and children 275

were being sent to the Soviet Union was confirmed. Between 7 o'clock and midnight last night three trains of sixty cars each moved eastward from Budapest with young men, women and children. Fifty farewell messages were thrown from one such train. In certain areas of Budapest, the police were searching houses street by street yesterday for young people, including youths from fifteen years up, and taking them away.8
And on December 1, we read that the decisions to do these things in Hungary, were made by Mikhail A. Suslov, of the Soviet Communist Party Presidium, by Mikoyan and by General Ivan Serov, a close friend of Khrushchev's, and the head of the Russian secret police.9 It was a situation made to order for a conservative Republican anti-Communist. On October 28, 1956, at the height of the rebellion, we learn of a speech by John Foster Dulles in which he offered economic aid to the Socialist satellites. He emphasized, says The New York Times,

that his offer was not conditioned 'upon the adoption by these countries of any particular form of society.' In the next sentence Mr. Dulles sought to reassure the Soviet Union. He asserted that the United States had 'no ulterior purpose in desiring the independence of the satellite countries' and that it did not look upon these nations as 'potential military allies.'10
Observe. Dulles is trying to "reassure" the Soviet Union. In fact, on the afternoon of November 2, 1956—when those sixteen-year-old girls in Budapest were servicing their slingshots while awaiting word from the United States—the Department of State, an agency of the American government, headed by a conservative Republican anti-Communist named John Foster Dulles, sent the following cable to Communist dictator Tito: "The Government of the United States does not look with favor upon governments unfriendly to the Soviet Union on the borders of the Soviet Union." Dulles's statement to Tito led Congressman Michael A. Feighan, Democrat of Ohio, to conclude:

It was no accident or misjudgment of consequences which led the imperial Russian Army to reinvade Hungary at 4 a.m. on the morning of November 4, 1956. The cabled 276

message to Tito was the go ahead signal to the Russians because any American school boy knows that Tito is Moscow's Trojan Horse. It took less than 48 hours for him to relay this message of treason to his superiors in the Kremlin.11 Notice that Congressman Feighan describes the cable as a "message of treason." On November 16, after the Socialist thugs had been reinstalled, we read that "The United States delegation was reported to be doing its best to prevent any action in the Assembly about Hungary until Mr. Hammarskjold had done what he could." The American delegation apparently believes, says The New York Times, that a Hungarian offer "to exchange views" on such matters as the withdrawal of Soviet forces and the holding of free elections, is "an indication that Mr. Hammarskjold at least had a 'thin wedge in the door.' " 12 Why they should believe that the offer was anything else but a stall for time, in view of the fact that the Socialists had just crushed the country rather than agree to these very demands, is not made clear. It seems, furthermore, that the Cuban delegation ignored American pleas to do nothing, and that Cuban delegate Emilio Nunez-Portuondo introduced a resolution holding that the UN Convention against genocide had been violated. "The reference to genocide was dropped out of that resolution at the last moment," we are told. "Supporters of the Genocide Convention insist that it was done at the behest of the United States delegation. . . ." 13 And in January 1957, the State Department—headed by John Foster Dulles—issued secret instructions to all the necessary officials, ordering them henceforth to stop calling it "the puppet Kadar government," and to call it instead "the Kadar government," or simply "the Hungarian government." 14 So what Dulles had done wasn't simply to refuse to support the heroic rebels—but in fact to do what he could to ensure their defeat and reenslavement by the Socialist tyranny. But the question arises: Couldn't it be that there was just nothing else Dulles could do? Couldn't it be that he really was a conservative Republican anti-Communist, but that in this horrible situation the only help he could arrange for the 277

heroes was the worthless talk of UN delegate Henry Cabot Lodge? Well, in the first place, of course, he could simply have delivered the men, or even just the weapons, with which the ten million rebels might have completed the job. But Dr. Spock is already yelling: "That's crazy! It's wild!" It could cause a "global war"—the "incineration of mankind" and the "obliteration of the earth!" No, it couldn't. We wish it were a plausible excuse, of course—for the sake of Dulles's reputation as a conservative Republican anti-Communist—but there just isn't any chance at all that there could have been a war. On November 3, 1956, we read that the Russians in Hungary face "widespread mutiny" among their troops. ". . . Some confirmation of these reports came in Cardinal Mindszenty's statement at his press conference that 'very many Russian soldiers rose up against the regime.' " And we read:

At another press conference a spokesman for the Revolutionary Council of the Hungarian Army said, 'West of the Danube Russian units have not really remained neutral but in many cases helped it [the revolution—Times],' It is a matter of history that more than 1,000,000 Soviet army soldiers revolted against communism in World War II. Undoubtedly thousands more would have defected had it not been for the brutality of the Nazis in Russia.15

And two weeks later, John MacCormac reports the discovery of a new concentration camp, which "contains 5,000 to 6,000 disarmed Soviet soldiers. They are said to be under heavy guard. One transport is reported to have already been moved out of the camp eastward. "Other refugees have reported that 200 to 300 Russian deserters are fighting on the side of about 8,000 Hungarian guerrillas. . . . " In fact, the Russian garrison troops were replaced for the final attack, on November 4, "by reinforcements who were largely Kirghiz or Mongols. . . ." 16 The reinforcements, says the Times, were "utterly confused." Some thought they were in Egypt. You see, Soviet Russia—so it won't slip our minds—is a totalitarian dictatorship, like Nazi Germany, Cyrus's Persia or Pharaoh's Egypt, and like any other totalitarian dictatorship it must constantly be worried not only about the countries it enslaves, but about the loyalty of its own troops. As we have seen, it can't trust its army to march a hundred miles. 278

So there just wasn't any chance that there could have been a war. A war would be the signal for the millions of slaves to rise as one. Yet Dulles refused to help—and refused to let anyone else help—the Hungarian teenagers. It seems that the Spanish government of Francisco Franco offered to send the necessary arms, and the West German government of Konrad Adenauer agreed to let the short-range Spanish planes land for the necessary refueling. So our State Department naturally prevented the delivery and, says Fulton Lewis, Jr., "it took Eisenhower's prestige as President to bring enough pressure to bear on Franco and Adenauer." 17 You see, conservative Republican anti-Communist Dulles couldn't bear to have anything to do with dictators. He was probably afraid that if he let Franco into the act it would tarnish the cause of the Hungarian teenagers. Dulles wanted them to die clean. But let's assume anyway, in the face of all these facts, that there could have been a war—a "global war"—which would naturally have meant "the obliteration of mankind" and the "incineration of the earth." Let's assume it even though there isn't any good reason to assume it. Let's assume it simply because you "have to" assume it; because it's axiomatic, basic, irreducible. There just could have been a war. Is there anything else Dulles could have done which we will both agree couldn't have caused a war? Well, for instance, he could have encouraged Britain, France and Israel to refuse to withdraw from Suez, the struggle for which was then going on, until Russia completely withdrew from Hungary. That wouldn't have caused a war. He certainly could have denounced the phony "spirit of Geneva" of the year before, couldn't he, and put an immediate stop to the phony "cultural exchange," which also wouldn't have caused a war. And finally, he could in fact have broken diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, not dramatically, not belligerently, but with the simple diplomatic explanation that any "government" that sends sixteen-year-old girls to Siberia packed in boxcars, simply isn't a government at all, and that the United States Government just doesn't conduct diplomatic relations with it. Prof. Marek Korowicz, who had come to America as first alternate delegate to the UN from Poland, testifies about the Russian master plan to reach the working masses of the various countries in the Western World over the heads 279

of their governments. The use of their diplomatic service, consulates, and legations of the Soviet, are understood to be propaganda centers in the heart of various international organizations in which the Soviet is represented other than the United Nations. It would be the greatest defeat that the Soviets could suffer, short of war, to be forced to break off diplomatic relations with the West.18 Furthermore, on October 26, we read that "Resurgent rebels, joined by tanks and infantry of the Hungarian Army, proclaimed a revolutionary government in the south of Hungary today after having seized control of large sections of the east"; 19 and on the next day that "Rebel forces controlling the industrial town of Gyor in West Hungary, proclaimed their own 'independent Hungarian Government. . . .' " 20 Indeed, as late as December 1, we are told that the Workers Council of Miskolc has declared the surrounding province of Borsod an independent republic that does not recognize the Kadar government.21 So what Dulles could have done was simply to recognize these governments, on the very reasonable ground that any six Hungarians who could sign their names were more of a Hungarian government than the pack of foreign murderers fronted by Kadar. But Dulles of course did none of these things. He did nothing at all. The only thing he did, in fact, as we have seen, was to join with the Socialists to reenslave the Hungarians. But there is more. There is a final piece of evidence. It is a single fact, yet so powerful is it, so devastating, that it dwarfs even the mountain of proof we have seen so far. It is so revealing that it is all we need to know about the entire affair. So unbelievable is it, in fact, so shattering, that I am not making here what you may think is the technical mistake of leaving myself open to anything anticlimactic. You see, this piece of proof is so definitive, so conclusive, that there just isn't any way that mistake could be made. It comes with a rush, with the concentrated, jolting power of a shell from a bazooka. You will remember that during the Hungarian Revolution, Soviet First Deputy Premier Anastas I. Mikoyan was in Budapest. It was Mikoyan, as we have seen, who, with the assistance of Soviet secret police chief Ivan Serov, planned and supervised Soviet activities. 280

It was Mikoyan who kidnapped the commander of the free Hungarians, after inviting him to "negotiate" under a flag of truce; who reinvaded Hungary after promising that the Russians had irrevocably withdrawn; and who deliberately murdered thousands of civilians; and then deported thousands of schoolgirls to Siberia. As we have seen finally, none of this is in any way secret information. It was all available in our daily newspapers. Indeed, the crimes of Mikoyan were so incredible that even The New York Times felt it would be healthy to editorialize as follows:
We accuse the Soviet Government of murder. We accuse it of the foulest treachery and the basest deceit known to man. We accuse it of having committed so monstrous a crime against the Hungarian people yesterday that its infamy can never be forgiven or forgotten.

In fact, said the Times, the Soviet reinvasion of November 4
killed first of all the picture of a reformed, penitent Russia seeking to repudiate Stalinism and practice coexistence. Could Stalin have acted more barbarously than did his successors yesterday? Can we have any doubt now of what awaits us if we ever relax our vigilance and permit ourselves to become prey to Soviet might, as was Hungary yesterday? 22

A short time later, in 1958, Anastas I. Mikoyan was in Washington. Indeed, he was the guest of honor at a party. His host was conservative Republican anti-Communist John Foster Dulles.23 So only a short time before, less than two years, in fact, Mikoyan is arranging murder, pillage and rape in Hungary and the delivery to concentration camps of sixteen-year-old girls, and only a short time later, John Foster Dulles throws him a party. Let's wait a minute. Let's not move on. It is important that this knowledge be branded indelibly on our brains. To throw a party for Anastas Mikoyan in 1958, was exactly the same thing—there just isn't any difference—as it would have been to throw a party for Himmler soon after the discovery of Buchenwald. Yet that is exactly what Dulles does. He goes out of his 281

way to impress upon the enslaved people that there is no point at all in continuing to resist. Furthermore, writes former State Department official Bryton Barron,

. . . evidence was put into the Congressional Record by Senator Bridges that State Department representatives were active months in advance in a softening-up process with small groups on a local level. The red official's coming had first been presented as that of a mere tourist with no other purpose than to see his old friend, the Russian ambassador —an attempted hoax, in other words, on the American people.24
There is a small note of humor even in this affair, though. It seems that among the fourteen guests at the F Street Club in Washington, where Dulles honored Mikoyan, was Mikoyan's twenty-six-year-old son, along with some members of the Soviet Embassy and State Department staffs. And it happens that the son, "a bright, reserved young man, very respectful of his powerful father," says Robert Murphy, "told me that it was unbelievable that Dulles should be giving this party. His astonishment seemed to imply that he thought his father was was our foe. . . ." 25 Wise up, kid!
CHAPTER NINETEEN: THE "LIBERATION" OF HUNGARY 1. Statement made on February 26, 1953, before House Foreign Affairs Committee. Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 715, March 9, 1953, p. 372. 2. Chesly Manly, The UN Record (Chicago, Henry Regnery Company, 1955), pp. 215-16. 3. New York Times, October 27, 1956, p. 1.

4. Ibid., November 3, 1956, p. 15. 5. Loc. cit. 6. Loc. cit. 7. Ibid., November 14, 1956, p. 1. 8. Ibid., November 16, 1956, p. 13. 9. Ibid., December 1, 1956, p. 8. 10. Ibid., October 28, 1956, p. 1.
11. 12. 13. 14. Congressional Record, August 31, 1960, p. 17407. New York Times, November 16, 1956, p. 13. Loc. cit. "Under the Rug," National Review, March 2, 1957, pp.

198-99. 282

16. Ibid., November 17, 1956, p. 10. 17. Exclusive, March 27, 1957, p. 1. 18. Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Reps., Testimony of Dr. Marek Stanislaw Korowicz, 83rd Cong., first sess. (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1953), p 2607.

15. New York Times, November 3, 1956, p. 15.

19. New York Times, October 26, 1956, p. 6. 20. Ibid., October 27, 1956, p. 1. 21. Ibid., December 1, 1956, p. 8. 22. Ibid., November 5, 1956, p. 30. 23. Robert Murphy, Diplomat Among Warriors (Garden City, Doubleday & Company, 1964), p. 442. 24. Bryton Barron, The Untouchable State Department (Springfield, Virginia, Crestwood Books, 1962), p. 67. 25. Murphy, op. cit., p. 442.


We are the world's greatest power, and we must play the part. If we seem to be timid, then fear will utterly paralyze the weaker nations.1
John Foster Dulles

Chapter Twenty: THE SUEZ CANAL
IN MAY 1953, Dulles took a trip through the Middle East and spent three days in Egypt, discussing the transfer of control over the Suez Canal Zone from Britain to the government of Gamal Abdel Nasser, then nominally headed by General Mohammed Naguib.2 He returned with the idea that the nations of the "northern tier," just beneath the Russian bulge, should form a military alliance. The idea was his invention. He pushed it, says Finer, "with vigor and persistence." 3 And finally, by October 1955, he had succeeded in creating the Baghdad Pact. The only thing wrong was that at the summit conference in Geneva in June 1955, he suddenly told Anthony Eden that he had decided not to join, which surprised and demoralized the British government.4 The "conservative Republican anti-Communist" also applied the "strongest pressure," says Finer, to get the British to evacuate their Suez Canal Zone base; "persuasion is hardly the word. At one time Dulles had let it be known that if the Egyptians attacked the British, the U.S.A. would not go to the help of Britain. . . ." 5 On July 27, 1954, an Anglo-Egyptian agreement was signed, and by June 13, 1956, the British had withdrawn from the base completely, well before they were supposed to do so. Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser, to whom Dulles thereby delivered complete control over all of Egypt, was already a highly accomplished performer. Says Finer, ... He had begun his political life as a believer in assassination; he had, at the age of thirty-four, cooperated in an attempt at assassinating an important Egyptian political leader. . . . And thenceforward he prescribed assassination 284

day in and day out for all Arab leaders who opposed his ambitions. . . . Dulles must have known of the incitements to the people of Jordan to kill King Hussein that emanated from Nasser's policy and propaganda apparatus, and even of Nasser's false assertions that he knew nothing about assassination plots. . . .6 Robert St. John mentions a man named Khaled Mobieddin, [who] became one of the few avowed Communists Nasser ever took into the secret military order. Then, early in 1944, Khaled introduced to Nasser a boyhood friend, Ahmed Fouad, a dynamic young lawyer with an extensive knowledge of Marxism and a large library on political, social, and economic subjects. From him Nasser borrowed many of the books he read during the years before the revolution. Most of them had a strong left-wing orientation.7 Indeed, says St. John, the meeting of Nasser and his fellow conspirators in 1952, at which for the last time they went over the plan for the capture of the government, was held at the home of Communist Mohieddin.8 And afterward, Mohieddin and Fouad went to work on the economy, with the assistance of an interesting variety of Socialists.9 There were some Communists of course. And there was "one of Adolf Hitler's economic experts," says St. John, "Dr. Wilhelm Voss, head of the Egyptian Central Planning Board and chief adviser to the War Ministry. Dr. Johann von Leers, who had been one of Goebbels' most trusted anti-Semitic rabble-rousers, was named political adviser to the Information Department. . . ." In fact, every day "additional names were whispered. Other foreigners might be trying to get out of Egypt, but the ex-Nazis were pouring in. There were hundreds of them. . . ."10 And this figures, of course. These defeated Nazis—these National Socialists—would naturally go where they would find it congenial: to another Socialist government. On November 1, 1954, in Cairo, the Communist gang called the FLN—the so-called National Liberation Front— headed by the Communist bank bandit called Ahmed Ben Bella, launched the campaign to communize Algeria—with the blessings and support of Gamal Nasser. In September 1955, Nasser made a huge arms deal with 285

Communist Russia, and technicians from Communist countries poured into Cairo. We do not know of any trouble they had with their colleagues, the Nazis. Soon afterward, says St. John, an Egyptian government announcer said on Cairo Radio: . . . American democracy leaves the capitalists free to rule the country, while the masses chase dollars and watch baseball. The Soviet Union is a true democracy, in which the rulers are chosen by the people through the Communist party.11 In March 1956, we read that several hundred Egyptians are being trained in Poland and Czechoslovakia; that Russia, by the way of the Czechs, will supply 50 bombers and 200 fighters; and that "if the present drift toward war with Israel continues, Egypt may ask the Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia for air force personnel to supplement the Egyptians already trained." 12 On the anniversary of the Bolshevik takeover in 1956, Nasser naturally sent Marshal Voroshilov, the director of the rape and murder of the women of Kiev, "Best wishes for the glory of the peoples of the Soviet Union, with whom our people are bound by the strongest ties of friendship and fraternity." 13 Four Egyptians with "strong pro-Soviet feelings" now occupied key positions, says St. John. Communist Mohieddin had been given 3/4 million dollars to start a newspaper. Fouad was director of fourteen companies, including Bank Misr, which controlled most of Egypt's commerce. Rashed el Barawky, who had translated Marx's Das Kapital into Arabic, was director of the Industrial Bank. As Minister of National Guidance, he appointed Fathy Radwan, who had attended the Communist Peace Congress in Vienna in 1951.14 And in 1959, Nasser began to describe his goal for the Arab people as "a co-operative, socialistic, democratic society." 15 It was with this totalitarian dictator that conservative Republican anti-Communist Dulles participated in a dazzling charade: On December 16, 1955, shortly after the Russo-Egyptian arms deal, Dulles announced that the United States and Britain would help finance the Aswan Dam. The Aswan Dam was to be built across the Nile a few miles south of the existing dam at Aswan, would be three 286

miles long, and was expected to improve the irrigation of the Nile valley, develop electricity and demonstrate the benevolence of Big Pharaoh Gamal. Late in March 1956, as we have seen, it was reported that Egyptians were being trained in Communist Poland, that Russia would supply several hundred warplanes and that Egypt may ask for Russian personnel. A few days later, Dulles explained that he was "not disposed to feel that there is any irrevocable decision on the part of the Government of Egypt to repudiate its ties with the West or to accept anything like vassalage to the Soviet Union." 16 On May 15, 1956, during a steady barrage of anti-American remarks, Nasser arranged the barter of Egyptian cotton for Chinese Communist steel. On July 19, 1956, during a visit to his office by Egyptian Ambassador Hussein, Dulles abruptly cancelled his offer to finance the Aswan Dam. And a week later, on July 26, only a month after the British left, as we have seen, Nasser forcibly grabbed the Suez Canal. Exactly why the Master Statesman did what he did is of course still officially a matter of mystery. ". . . Even President Eisenhower was not consulted until the morning of Hussein's visit. . . . Dulles never did explain his actions," says Robert Murphy.17 But we do know exactly what he did—and that was to provide a convenient excuse for Nasser's robbery. In a speech at Alexandria after the crime, for instance, Nasser said Egypt

would build the Dam herself with money earned by the
Canal. Eden writes that Nasser's act "was a seizure of West-

ern property in reply to the action of the United States Government. . . ."18 And Finer says that "The withdrawal
of the loan offer was more than a mistake of tactics; it was a political disaster. Did Dulles's action 'trigger' the seizure of the Canal? Indubitably, the answer is Yes! . . ."19 Couldn't it be, however, that Dulles cancelled the loan for the most obvious and sensible reason—simply to protest the growing danger of Nasser's Communist activities? Couldn't it be that Dulles was finally acting to stop Communism? The Suez Canal was an international asset, "for all the world . . . and for all time," guaranteed as such by the Treaty of Constantinople of 1888. Nasser's unilateral action was clearly illegal. Furthermore, some forty or fifty ships used the Canal daily, carrying one-sixth of the cargoes of the


whole world, including a quarter of all British exports and imports; and about half of the 75 per cent of Europe's oil that came from the Middle East. And in his booklet, The Philosophy of the Revolution, which appeared in 1954 in a Cairo newspaper, Nasser had threatened to shut off that very oil. So Britain and France were naturally disturbed. They demanded that the Canal be reinternationalized, safe from the whims of just one man. On August 16, in response to American insistence on the need for negotiation, twenty-two countries gathered at the London Conference. Dulles himself opened the show, with a speech presenting the proposals of Britain, France and the United States, and these were later embodied in a declaration endorsed by eighteen of the powers, which called for the negotiation of a new treaty to replace the one of 1888. The proposed treaty created a new international board to operate the Canal. And it recognized the sovereign rights of Egypt, which would have been a member of the board, would have had a voice in selecting other members and received a fair price for the use of the Canal. It was to include provisions for the arbitration of disputes, for sanctions in case of violation and for some form of association with the United Nations. ". . . This declaration was perfectly satisfactory to us," says Eden, "and it was reassuring that the Americans presented it. . . ." 20 Indeed, says Murphy, the declaration was "prepared mostly by the American delegation. . . ." 21 Conservative Republican anti-Communist John Foster Dulles now withdrew to his retreat in Lake Ontario, for a weekend of meditation. He emerged on September 4. He had a new idea. Now he said that what was needed wasn't a new treaty with Egypt after all.22 So what Dulles had done was to demand negotiation, to arrange the London Conference, to draw up and present the Western proposal—and now he announces that the Western proposal isn't any good. Eden says his new opinion came "unexpectedly," which is probably what is meant by British understatement. On the next day, September 5, in Cairo, Prime Minister Robert G. Menzies of Australia, according to plan, presented the 18-power proposal to "President" Nasser. He relates that 288

he assured Nasser that the British and French were not bluffing, were united in the demand for strong action and that public opinion even opposed his trip to Cairo to talk; to all of which Nasser, he says, was very amenable. But by the next day, Nasser's attitude had appreciably stiffened. "He had, like the rest of us," says Menzies, "read in the morning newspapers a statement of policy of the United States Government which said in headlines, 'There must be no use of force' and that if the proposals of the London Conference were rejected, others must be considered. From that time on, Nasser felt he was through the period of danger." 23 He completely rejected the 18-power proposals. In fact, says Murphy, "the Menzies committee never had a chance of success. The Suez problem did not lend itself to negotiation because, in seizing the Canal, Nasser had burned his bridges and could not retreat. Nationalization had become an accomplished fact. The proposed new treaty did not seem to me a practical device because there was no adequate reason why it should be accepted by the Egyptians. . . ." 24 In other words, Dulles dreamed up a plan Nasser had no reason to accept, and then gave him a good reason to reject it. The Master Statesman sprang again to the drawing board. He now got to work on the problem of the tolls. These of course were supremely important. As we have seen, Nasser planned to use them to finance his dam. British and French ships ordinarily accounted for some 55 per cent of these tolls, but had been refusing to pay them to Nasser at Suez, depositing them instead to the accounts of the old Suez Canal Company in London and Paris. The Dutch, Norwegians and Germans, other large payers, had agreed immediately to do the same. And when Dulles was in London even before the Conference, the British and French had explained how vital it was that American-owned ships, the third largest payers, also refuse Nasser their tolls. The "conservative Republican anti-Communist" had naturally advised American ships to continue paying their tolls to Nasser, but he now came up with the invention, after Nasser rejected his 18-power proposals in September, of something called the Suez Canal Users' Association. Under SCUA the Canal would be operated and managed by the users. The Association would hire the pilots, pay Nasser a fair share and —most important—collect the tolls. Nasser would be denied exclusive use of the fruits of his crime. 289

The British and French were highly skeptical. They wanted immediate action—not another conference and lots of talk. So Dulles turned on the famous charm. Unreeling the famous tongue, he conveyed to the French Ambassador "the unmistakable conviction," says Finer, that he intended either to create SCUA, and compel acceptance of the 18-power proposals or completely boycott the Canal, with the assistance of American oil and American money.

. . . On September 11, when the Ambassador brought the affirmative reply of the French government in regard to the SCUA proposal, Dulles once again gave his assurance that the United States would do everything required to assert the authority of the Suez Canal Users Association. Moreover, to emphasize his idea of going to the length of putting the Canal out of use except on the Association's terms, he conveyed the indubitable impression that the United States would apply at least economic sanctions, effective ones. . . .25
Britain and France bought the idea with great reluctance, and almost entirely to preserve unity with the Americans.26 You will remember that only two years before, the Master Statesman had developed the policy of "united action," and refused to save Dien Bien Phu for fear of endangering what Eisenhower called "our normally close and highly valued relationship with the British." On September 13, while Eden was reassuring those members of Parliament who were wondering what would happen if Nasser blocked SCUA ships, Dulles in Washington said as follows: We do not intend to shoot our way through. It may be we have the right to do it but we don't intend to do it as far as the United States is concerned . . . each nation has to decide for itself what action it will have to take to defend and if possible realize its rights which it believes it has as a matter of treaty. I do not recall just exactly what Sir Anthony Eden said on this point. . . .27 Eden recalls that

It would be hard to imagine a statement more likely to cause the maximum allied disunity and disarray. . . . The words were an advertisement to Nasser that he could reject the project with impunity. We had never been told that a statement of this kind was to accompany the an290

nouncement of the Users' Club. Had we known that they were to be used as an accompaniment to the American announcement we would never have endorsed it. ... The Users' Club was an American project to which we had conformed. We were all three in agreement, even to the actual words of the announcement. Yet here was the spokesman of the United States saying that each nation must decide for itself and expressing himself as unable to recall what the spokesman of a principal ally had said. . . .28 Again the diplomats met in London, on September 19. Again they talked. Again they decided. The Suez Canal Users' Association was actually formed. But it was toothless. At a press conference on October 2, Dulles explained: "There is talk about teeth being pulled out of the plan, but I know of no teeth: there were no teeth in it, so far as I am aware." Eden recalls that, The representatives of the Users' Association countries were then assembled in London confidently awaiting the United States decision to pay the canal dues to their organization. These were the teeth. Mr. Dulles' statement was in conflict with the users' understanding of the United States Government's intentions. Our representative on the committee. Lord John Hope, reported exasperation and dismay in their ranks. . . .29
It seems that at this late date, American ships were still paying their tolls directly to Nasser, on Dulles's advice. At this same press conference, furthermore, Dulles said that the Suez problem had something or other to do with "colonialism," an issue he had repeatedly said did not apply, and this too landed with devastating effect in British ranks.30 And finally, on October 15, in an exchange with Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd, Dulles explained that he wanted the Users' Club to "cooperate" with Egypt, not punish it. In fact, he wanted most of the tolls handed to Nasser, so that as Eden says, Nasser "was now to be paid infinitely more than anything he had been offered before. . . ." 31 And Finer points out that: ". . . Nobody in the State Department or elsewhere has ever contradicted Eden's account in any particular. . . ." 32 So Dulles had introduced the Suez Canal Users' Association with the stated purpose, as we have seen, of denying 291

Nasser the crucial tolls, and when it is all over, Nasser is to get more tolls than ever before. Dulles so emasculated his own idea, in fact, that Nasser decided to keep them all. SCUA sank before Nasser could fire a torpedo. "If John Foster Dulles ever was actually convinced of the possibility of organizing a Canal Users Association to operate the Suez Canal, I was not aware of it," says Murphy. "Perhaps he considered the idea useful as a negotiating device. . . ." 33 So the Suez Canal Users' Association apparently was never a genuine proposal at all. It was never meant to work! But perhaps the most revealing of all the revealing aspects of this particular affair was the Master Statesman's unusual attitude toward the United Nations. Dulles, as we have seen, was one of the founders of that organization. Year after year he attended its sessions, as an official member of the American delegation and had always been quick to defend its doings. But the interesting thing was that Eden, too, was an internationalist and a strong supporter of the United Nations. He was by no means one of these "right-wing extremists." He writes, for instance: . . . We were convinced that the answer to Nasser must take account of the modern trend towards internationalism and away from nationalism. Our object must be to undo his action and to place the management of the canal firmly in international custody. . . .34 In fact what Eden was trying all along to do in the affair, as we have seen, was exactly the kind of thing conservative Republican anti-Communist Dulles had been advocating for years: taking control of property away from one country, or one man, and handing it over to some international authority. The unusual thing was, wasn't it, that this time the man in question wasn't a "right-wing extremist," or even a "nonCommunist," but a close associate of Socialist Russia, actively engaged in doing its work. So here is a rare situation, is it not, in which Internationalism, and International Socialism, are in opposite corners. This time, the various participants will have to choose. When International Socialist Nasser first made his grab, conservative Republican anti-Communist Dulles put Murphy on the job. Murphy characteristically suggested that the 292

Canal be handed to the United Nations. And Internationalist Eden characteristically thought this would be perfectly all right.35 Anyone who thought it wouldn't be all right, is, of course, sick—but Dulies refused to take the issue to the United Nations.36 Instead, as we have seen, he drew up the 18-power proposals, and then arranged for their rejection. Again the British and French considered an appeal to the United Nations. And now they drafted a resolution for the Security Council, and handed it for inspection to the United States. Dulles explained that he not only wouldn't join in sponsoring it—but that he wouldn't even support it. What nettled him most, says Finer, was that the draft resolution bluntly condemned Nasser's action and firmly called on him to negotiate on Dulles's own eighteen-power proposals. For if the resolution passed, the onus of action would be put on Dulles. He had called for a condemnation of Nasser's seizure—no one so forcibly. He had invented the proposals. The British and French were fulfilling his own proposed course of peaceful negotiation. He was now being taken at his word, and at the United Nations he would have to support or turn his back on his own pronouncements and moral position. . . .37

Eden again applies typical British understatement and calls the affair "extraordinary." In fact, the "conservative Republican anti-Communist" now urged the Allies not to ask for action by way of their resolution, but merely to write the Security Council a letter: "Dear Security Council, Gamal grabbed the Canal"—and to ask for nothing. They wrote the letter. Dulles refused to sign it.38 Finer calls Dulles's reason, which follows, astounding:
The United States government did not wish to create an identity of interest with Britain and France, which might prove embarrassing to them, the British and French.39

And at the second London conference, called to establish his SCUA, Dulles again strongly appealed to Eden to delay an appeal to the UN.40 So all his life, as we have seen, Dulles has used Interna293

tionalism when it advanced the Communist cause—but now he refused to use it when it would delay the Communist cause. The British and French, and the Israelis, had had enough. Every day, Nasser was tightening his control of the Canal. Time was what he needed most. And, as chance would have it, what Dulles was really doing, says Murphy, was "skillfully working for time in the hope that public opinion in western Europe would harden against a military adventure. . . ."41 The Allies "suspected him," says Finer, "of simply delaying justice so that they should surrender their rights. . . ." 42 On October 29, the Jews invaded Egypt by way of the Sinai peninsula, and advanced, yea, even unto the Suez Canal, putting Nasser's Soviet-trained army to rout. The British and French sent notes to Egypt and Israel calling on them to stop hostilities and withdraw from either bank of the Canal. Egypt rejected the note; on October 31, the Allies attacked the Egyptian air force, and on November 5, they landed troops and took control of Port Said. It will be valuable to compare Dulles's treatment of Nasser, our enemy, who had forcibly grabbed the Canal, with his treatment of the Allies and of Israel, who are supposed to be our friends. As early as the evening of July 27, the day after Nasser grabbed the Canal, Eden sent Eisenhower the following telegram: ". . . My colleagues and I are convinced that we must be ready, in the last resort, to use force to bring Nasser to his senses. For our part we are prepared to do so. I have this morning instructed our Chiefs of Staff to prepare a military plan accordingly." 43

Soon afterward, by way of Dulles, Eisenhower sent a message to Eden, who summarizes it as follows: We (the U.S.A.) are committed to the United Nations organization. You must avoid the use of force—at least until we have proved to the world that the United Nations organization cannot handle the problem. . . . ... I emphasize the unwisdom of force now. If you are to use force later" and so on.44 (Italics added) "It is abundantly clear," says Finer, "that Eisenhower did not rule out the use of force altogether. If Eden's precis of Eisenhower's letter is a little bleak, it is perfectly truthful. . . ."45 And you will remember that when the Master Statesman 294

torpedoed his SCUA, he admitted that we did indeed have the right to shoot our way through. So Dulles not only knew from the beginning that the British thought force eventually might have to be used, and not only agreed, but, as we see, he thought the British had the right to use it. The point is that a reasonable man and a reasonable government naturally wish that force can be avoided, and that it may be possible to convince a psychotic murderer like, say, Adolf Hitler, that killing and stealing are basically wrong, but since they are reasonable, they are aware that reason unfortunately makes no impression on people like Hitler, who will kill and steal in defiance of reason, and that much as we dislike it, force may be the only way to stop them. That is why we need policemen. It is also why Israel's attack was not only right—it was so right that not to have attacked would have been terribly wrong. Egypt had previously declared war on Israel, in violation of the 1948 UN armistice. In September 1951, there was a Security Council resolution that Egypt stop closing the Canal to Israeli ships and ships carrying cargoes to and from Israel. Nasser ignored it and thereby was doing exactly what Dulles said would be "intolerable" in a speech in Dallas on October 27, 1956, just two days before the Israelis struck.46 Various Arab armies were now uniting under a single command amid continual statements that Israel would be destroyed. Nasser was supervising the vicious thugs called fedayeen commandos, who by October 29, were responsible for 11,873 cases of sabotage in Israel and 1,335 Israeli casualties, including large numbers of women and children. And in spring and summer of 1956, Nasser had moved substantial Russian heavy equipment, including about 50 bombers, to the edge of the Gaza strip. The Jews captured mountains of this Communist equipment an their way across Sinai. Well, the Master Statesman looked the mess over. It was perfectly obvious what had to be done. He went immediately to the United Nations. Indeed, Finer speaks of "the missionary zeal, efficiency, and speed" with which the United States pressed UN action. The State Department actually proposed that Israel—the victim —be named the aggressor in the Security Council.47 At the session which met on October 30, the "conservative Republican anti-Communist" arranged—with the enthusiastic 295

collaboration of Soviet delegate Sobolev—that the Council be asked to order Israel to withdraw, but Britain and France vetoed his resolution.48 At that session, says Finer: . . . Henry Cabot Lodge deliberately brushed Sir Pierson Dixon out of his way when the latter sought to converse with him. . . . When it came to Dulles's and Eisenhower's and Lodge's turn to be rude, these had no compunction about it at all, as the British and French leaders had had since July 26, even when they realized Dulles's trickiness. . . .49

On November 1, Dulles himself introduced a resolution in the General Assembly. It naturally denounced the British and French, and naturally said nothing about why they had intervened, and naturally proposed no move by the United Nations. It did not suggest an international force or an international agreement for the Canal. That of course would have been very "international," and as we have seen, was just what the British wanted, but unfortunately would have inconvenienced Khrushchev and his Socialist associate in Cairo. So it simply demanded an immediate cease-fire, and was passed, 64 to 5. Conservative Republican internationalist Dulles now tried to get the British to accept the resolution. On the morning of November 6, for instance, Harold Macmillan telephoned Washington for help in making a call on the International Monetary Fund, to sustain the pound. He was told a loan would be available, but only if the British ceased fire by midnight.50 They did, but only because, as usual, they had been thoroughly deceived about what was to come.51 On the next day, Eden called Eisenhower and asked whether he and French Prime Minister Mollet couldn't fly over immediately to coordinate Allied policy in the Middle East, and to alert Eisenhower to the danger of Soviet penetration. Dulles naturally was against this, however, which led to a series of calls and telegrams, and finally, says Eden, Eisenhower agreed to meet—but only after the Anglo-French forces had been withdrawn from Egypt in obedience to still another UN resolution. Conservative Republican Internationalist Dulles demanded and arranged, in short, that the Allies withdraw even before a policy had been made—which of course would leave little reason to make a policy—before any concessions could be 296

drawn from Nasser, and even before a UN force could arrive on the scene.52 . . . The United States officials refused to co-operate at any level of policy-making. They declared that Britain, France and the United States must not appear to be conspiring together behind the back of the United Nations. Their only reaction to reports of Russian infiltration in the Middle East was to press us to remove our forces more quickly.53

And it is supremely revealing to recall that the Hungarian Revolution was going on at this very time. The British urged UN action against the Russians, but here, as we have seen, the American attitude was slightly different:
. . . The United States representative was reluctant, and voiced his suspicion that we were urging the Hungarian situation to divert attention from Suez. The United States Government appeared in no hurry to move. Their attitude provided a damaging contrast to the alacrity they were showing in arraigning the French and ourselves.54 And there is more. There is the fact that on February 20, 1957, Eisenhower met with Congressional leaders to discuss the use of sanctions to force Israel to evacuate Sinai, and revealed, says Sherman Adams, that "the United States had applied sanctions only three months ago against the United Kingdom and France for exactly the same purpose when oil from the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean was withheld until these powers agreed to withdraw from Egypt." 55 But, says Finer, . . . the public had been led to believe by the President and Dulles that the moral power of the United Nations and the Christian commitment of the United States had done the job. It was not a truthful education for the American people or the leaders and masses of Britain and France: they felt cheated.56 And on February 20, Dulles argued forcefully that either Israel withdraw unconditionally or America impose sanctions.57 It seems the Israelis wanted assurances first, as had Britain and France. They asked for the use of the Gulf of Aqaba and that Gaza be neutralized. They finally withdrew from Gaza on March 7, with Dulles's assurances that a UN administration—not the Egyptians— would take over. 297

A week later, Egypt took over. Dulles did nothing. Furthermore, Israeli ships still weren't allowed through the Suez Canal, in continuing violation of the Security Council resolution of September 1951. Then, only a few months later, Dulles released 26 million dollars of Egyptian credits in the United States, handed Nasser a gift of $600,000 of your money and again began to talk about the Aswan Dam.58 In fact, Russia demanded that reparations be paid to Egypt by France and Britain, and the payments had to be made in order to open the Canal and keep it open.59 Dulles then acted against Britain, France and Israel, Finer sums up, with tactics that may fairly be described as savage. . . ." 60 And the defeat he arranged for America was so thoroughly devastating, that even The New York Times—to preserve the popular notion that it is some sort of newspaper—felt it necessary to call it "a Mideastern Munich." The Times continued, President Nasser of Egypt emerges from the crisis exactly in the role that the Soviets, as stated in Premier Bulganin's letter to Prime Minister Eden, wished him to have—the 'sovereign master of the Suez Canal,' able to hold the Western World at ransom. . . . [Nasser] has been able to perpetrate a major piece of international grand larceny under the protection of the United Nations, including in particular the United States. . . .61 But two questions remain, which must be answered to ensure fairness. First there is the fact that when Britain, France and Israel threatened to unseat Socialist Russia's Egyptian associate, the Russians threatened to send in "volunteers," warning that this could be the beginning of the Third World War, including the use of nuclear bombs. So couldn't this be the reason Dulles acted the way he did? Couldn't it be that he was simply trying to prevent a war, which would naturally mean the "obliteration of mankind" and the "incineration of the earth"? No, it couldn't. It's a nice try, of course, and of course we all wish it could be; but unfortunately, it can't. You see, Admiral Arthur W. Radford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "had made it perfectly clear to him that Russia was in no position to do anything militarily in the Middle East, even by way of a dispatch of 'volunteers. . . .' " 62 298

At that very moment, in fact, as we have seen, Russian troops were deserting in Hungary by the thousands. And we can be absolutely sure of this because military man Eisenhower, who Murphy says was "unperturbed," stated as follows to a group of his advisers: "Look at the map. Geography makes effective Soviet intervention in Egypt difficult, if not impossible." 63 So why worry? There just wasn't any chance that there could have been a war. And finally there is the fact that on November 3, 1956, Dulles had an emergency operation, and the question of whether we can't clear this "conservative Republican antiCommunist" at least of what came later, simply by saying that he was incapacitated. No, we're very sorry, and of course we're trying very hard, but unfortunately we can't say that either. You see,

On the day following his operation, although he was still being fed intravenously, Dulles read a thick stack of diplomatic dispatches, gave instructions to various members of the State Department and conferred with Acting Secretary Hoover.

We are told: [Walter Reed Hospital became] a little State Department. Diplomats and ambassadors came and went in a steady stream. Phyllis D. Bernau, personal assistant to Dulles, arrived early each morning. 'The Secretary's voice might have been a little weaker than usual,' she says, 'but his letters and directives were as keen and thorough-going as ever. No one treated him as an invalid—he didn't give us a chance.'64

No, try as we might the only thing we can say is that conservative Republican anti-Communist Dulles knew what he was doing: helping Soviet affiliate Nasser keep control of the Canal; that there was no saving circumstance or pressure that forced him to do it; that in short he did it simply because he wanted to do it—and that he was thoroughly responsible for it. CHAPTER TWENTY: THE SUEZ CANAL
1. New York Times, August 30, 1952, p. 14. 2. Time, Vol. 62, No. 15, October 12, 1953, p. 21. 299

3. Herman Finer, Dulles Over Suez: The Theory and Practice of His Diplomacy, (Chicago, Quadrangle Books, 1964), p. 17. 4. Ibid., p. 18. 5. Ibid., p. 16. 6. Ibid., p. 26. 7. Robert St. John, The Boss: The Story of Gamal Abdel Nasser, (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1960), p. 50. 8. Ibid., p. 115. 9. Ibid., p. 137. 10. Ibid., pp. 152-53. 11. Ibid., p. 212. 12. New York Times, March 24, 1956, p. 6. 13. St. John, op. cit., p. 271. 14. Loc. cit. 15. Ibid., p. 308. 16. New York Times, April 4, 1956, p. 8. 17. Robert Murphy, Diplomat Among Warriors (Garden City, Doubleday & Company, 1964), p. 377. 18. Anthony Eden, Full Circle (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1960), p. 472. 19. Finer, op. cit., p. 59. 20. Eden, op. cit., p. 503. 21. Murphy, op. cit., p. 386. 22. Eden, op. cit., p. 515. 23. Murphy, op. cit., p. 387. 24. Loc. cit. 25. Finer, op. cit., pp. 217-18. 26. Eden, op. cit., p. 534. 27. Ibid., p. 539. Or see Finer, op. cit., p. 237. 28. Eden, op. cit., pp. 539-40. 29. Ibid., p. 557. 30. Finer, op. cit., p. 289. 31. Eden, op. cit., pp. 570-71. 32. Finer, op. cit., p. 220. See also Roscoe Drummond and Gaston Coblentz, Duel At the Brink (Garden City, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1960), pp. 172-73. 33. Murphy, op. cit., p. 386. 34. Eden, op. cit., p. 477. 35. Ibid., p. 484. And Finer, op. cit., p. 95. 36. Finer, op. cit., p. 95. 37. Ibid., p. 205. 38. Eden, op. cit., p. 531. 39. Finer, op. cit., p. 214. 40. Ibid., p. 260. 41. Murphy, op. cit., p. 386. See also Finer, op. cit., p. 217, and Eden, op. cit., p. 531. 42. Finer, op. cit., p. 270. 43. Eden, op. cit., p. 477. 44. Finer, op. cit., p. 91. 300

45. Ibid., p. 92. 46. Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 35, No. 906, November 5, 1956, p. 699. 47. Finer, op. cit., p. 367. And Eden, op. cit., p. 586. 48. Finer, op. cit., p. 368. 49. Ibid., p. 380. 50. Ibid., p. 429. 51. Eden, op. cit., pp. 624-25. 52. Ibid., p. 631. 53. Ibid., p. 634. See also Murphy, op. cit., p. 393. 54. Eden, op. cit., p. 609. 55. Quoted in Finer, op. cit., pp. 462-63. 56. Loc. cit. 57. Ibid., pp. 477-79. 58. Holmes Alexander, Boston Herald, May 8, 1958; and US News and World Report, Vol. 45, No. 4, July 25, 1958, p. 67. 59. Finer, op. cit., p. 446. 60. Ibid., p. 7. 61. New York Times, April 27, 1957, p. 18. 62. Finer, op. cit., p. 396. 63. Murphy, op. cit., p. 390. 64. Than and June Robbins, "Mr. Dulles' Finest Hour," Coronet, Vol. 44, No. 3, July, 1958, p. 23.


Sometimes it is felt that the United States ought more often to use its power to effectuate settlements. The United States can and does exert an influence in quiet and inconspicuous ways as a friend of all the parties. . . . But we do not assume the right to meddle or be the arbiter of other peoples' affairs.1
John Foster Dulles

DULLES NOW arranged a sequel to Suez, in neighboring Lebanon, which was highly reminiscent of the tactics of the late Alphonse Capone. It began in January 1957, when Dulles manufactured the Eisenhower Doctrine, and announced the idea, say Drummond and Coblentz, in the following way:

. . . With extraordinary maladroitness, Dulles told Congress that American troops would not be standing 'shoulder to shoulder' with British and French soldiers in the Middle East. He intended to prove to the uncommitted world that there would be no colonial blemish to the Eisenhower Doctrine. His way of phrasing it could scarcely have been more unfortunate. British and French forces were in fact standing 'shoulder to shoulder' with American troops in the vital NATO defense line in Europe, and Dulles himself wanted more of them. His remark caused bitter black headlines in England and France. . . .2

In any event, the idea was as usual supposed to be the way to "stop Communism" in the Middle East. If a government in the area was threatened by Communism, and asked for our help—for our protection—we would respond in force under the Doctrine. It was the Master Statesman's answer to the disastrous defeat he had arranged at Suez. This was good to know, because by the middle of 1958, with the help of his friends Khrushchev and Dulles, Socialist dictator Nasser was doing very well. He was of course completely in control of the Suez Canal. Early in the year, he had 302

grabbed Syria and stirred up an anti-British war in Yemen; and was putting pressure on pro-Western Jordan, all with the support of Socialist Russia. He was sending arms secretly to the Algerian Communists, and to Saudi Arabian tribesmen of doubtful loyalty to the ruling Sauds. His agitators were everywhere, often working in collaboration with Soviet agents. Of course, he was deep in debt to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but had recently been treated to an 18-day gala visit to Moscow and returned to Cairo with Socialist beast Khrushchev's promise of "all the help you need to unite the Arab peoples." 3 And you will remember that in November 1957, Dulles had released 26 million dollars of Egyptian credits, and simply handed him $600,000—of your money—which probably also came in handy. Nasser's eye now fell on Lebanon. This was a small, relatively prosperous and peaceful country on the Mediterranean shore, of about 1-1/2 million people, half Christian and half Moslem, which the French carved out of Syria after World War I. It was highly pro-Western—indeed, one of the most pro-Western countries in the entire area. For instance, writes Edward Wakin, some 350,000 Lebanese in America in 1958 were still eligible to vote in the homeland. A Lebanese visiting Detroit, Boston or Brooklyn could use his village affiliation as a passport among the large Lebanese groups there. ". . . Before Alaska interfered, the Lebanese used to talk of becoming the forty-ninth state."4 Nasser was also intrigued by the fact that though Lebanon is a small country and has no oil itself, most of the oil that moved by pipe-line from Iraq and Saudi Arabia went through Syria and into Lebanon, where it was loaded into tankers at Lebanese ports. Nasser already had grabbed the Suez Canal, through which the tankers could leave the Middle East. And he had just grabbed Syria. If he and his Communist bosses could now grab Lebanon and its ports, they would have complete control of the Western oil routes. The operation began in the usual way, with the burning and sacking of the United States Information Service library in Tripoli on May 10. It was conducted by a gentleman named Rashid Karami,5 who according to Newsweek is "slim" and "elegant," and who describes Nasser as a "superman." 6 Mr. Karami was not just a free-lance terrorist. It seems that the year before, he had been the only Lebanese "dele303

gate" to Moscow's fortieth annual celebration of the Bolshevik "Revolution." During the fun, he said he wanted Lebanon to join the United Arab Republic, the new union of Egypt and Syria.7 And there was naturally a violent press and radio campaign calling for the overthrow of the government of President Camille Chamoun, and the usual "civil rights" activity setting the Moslems against the Christians—standard operating procedure in a Communist takeover. The operation in Lebanon, says The New York Times, is a move for dropping a policy of close cooperation with the West, for working more closely with the United Arab Republic of Egypt and Syria, and for a stronger political position for the Moslem community inside Lebanon.8 Indeed, the operation was run by the book: Communist activity, in the main, has been under cover But Lebanese intelligence experts believe that many of the lower-echelon leaders—the 'squad leaders' behind the barricades in Beirut and Tripoli—are Communist Party members. Some of them are reported to leave the barricades frequently for secret meetings with Soviet Embassy officials. The Soviet Embassy has not been making any open contacts with the rebels. But, from time to time, pro-Communist tracts are distributed in the city, and Beirut's Communist newspaper continues to publish.9 The only unusual detail, in fact, was the behavior of the 9,000-man army commanded by General Fuad Chehab. Chehab simply refused to take any action against the Communists. Once, for instance, during a period of heavy fighting, U.S. Ambassador Robert McClintock found him not at his headquarters but among the orange trees in the garden of his villa at Juniye, 30 minutes north of Beirut. "It's Sunday and a day of rest," Chehab explained.10 Life magazine explains that Chehab was "unimpressed by Chamoun's pro-Western bias." 11 Indeed, we read, the rebels were given liberties that must be almost unheard of in a civil war. Many of the top rebels, for example, are allowed to move about and meet each other to discuss strategy. They talk with each other by telephone from their barricaded houses. They receive news correspondents, hold press conferences and grant interviews.12 304

And W. H. Lawrence reports from the scene: General Chehab has great censorship powers, domestic and foreign, to conceal his role in current developments. The censorship is military, responsible to him and not to President Chamoun or the Cabinet headed by Premier es Solh. When General Chehab meets with armed rebel leaders, this information is suppressed both in the Lebanese press and, so far as possible, in dispatches intended for publication in foreign newpapers. The foreign newspapers that are sold here also are censored with scissors to remove articles that might be offensive to General Chehab.13
On June 1, Jay Walz reports from Tripoli that Rashid Karrami, who as we have seen is the leader of the Communist forces there, has gone through the lines for a friendly talk with General Chehab. Indeed, says Walz, "It was learned that not only did Mr. Karameh (sic) leave and reenter Tripoli at will but that the same courtesy had been extended by the army to his two brothers and other aides." 14 What Rashid conceivably wanted to convey was the good news that Nasser had selected Chehab to succeed Chamoun.15 And a month later, Richard P. Hunt reports from Tripoli on a recent proposal, made by Karami, to give Chehab full power to govern for an indefinite period.16 On July 14, 1958, King Faisal and his family, strong allies of the West, were overthrown and murdered in nearby Iraq by a group of army officers who formed a "revolutionary" regime. The new Premier, Brigadier Abdul Karim Kassem, had been planning the grab for two years, said Al Akhbar of July 16, and had "formed cells" in the army, using techniques perfected by Nasser.17 And President Chamoun, our friend, asked for American help under the Eisenhower Doctrine. Well, the Master Statesman looked this mess over, too. It was perfectly obvious what had to be done. He decided to send in the U.S. Marines. And Eisenhower explained the decision in a speech on the night of July 15: . . . This civil strife had been actively fomented by Soviet and Cairo broadcasts and abetted and aided by substantial amounts of arms, money and personnel infiltrated into Lebanon across the Syrian border.18 305

Within 24 hours of Chamoun's request, 3,600 Marine were landing in Lebanon. By July 25, we had put ashore more than 10,000 men, more than the entire Lebanese army. And later we landed still another 4,000. The only trouble was that Dulles also sent in Deputy Under-Secretary of State Robert Murphy, as "adviser" to Admiral James L. Holloway, Jr., commander in chief of United States forces, with the result that the Marines had landed, but the situation was not in hand at all. Indeed, writes W. H. Lawrence, United States military intervention has backfired politically in Lebanon. The presence of the troops there has served in a curious way to weaken friends of the United States and strengthen the Lebanese Opposition, which continues both its armed insurrection and its economic strike. . . . . . . Nothing has been done militarily to crush the insurrection since United States forces landed. Settlement efforts are entirely political. It is the Lebanese Government, which called for entry of United States forces, that is subject to the greatest pressures to make compromises.19

It seems that Murphy landed in Lebanon slightly confused. He tells us as late as 1964:

. . . Under the Lebanese constitution, the President of the Republic was limited to one term in office, but Chamoun was proposing to amend the constitution and seek a second term, and this political issue was one of the main reasons for the civil war.10 Murphy apparently was unaware, and still is, that Eisenhower himself, in his speech on the evening of July 15, explained that Chamoun "has previously made clear that he does not seek re-election";21 that several others so certified;22 and that the Communists wanted Chamoun to step down even before his term expired on September 23, but that:
the resignation of Chamoun, by itself, would not satisfy the insurgents if he were followed by another President who carried out the same pro-Western program. That is why the rebels are keeping up their harassing operations, even though a new President is scheduled to be elected July 24. The rebels believe that, by keeping the country in turmoil, they will scare off the Deputies in Parliament from electing a pro-Western successor to Chamoun. If the pro-Government Deputies should meet on July 24 306

and elect a President who does not meet with the approval of the rebels, the insurgents intend to continue their fight.23 So the State Department decided that Murphy should arrange for Chamoun's successor, who would then go through the motions of being elected.24

Murphy scouted around among the various candidates. And he selected Fuad Chehab. He insisted on Chehab.25 On July 31, Chehab was elected president by the Parliament by a vote of 48 to 8. It is difficult to argue with a man who controls the United
States Marines.

W. H. Lawrence reports the amusing fact that
During the entire insurrection, probably the greatest public

show of force displayed by the Lebanese Army was on
July 31 when it guarded the session of Parliament at which

General Chehab was chosen President. It is not without
significance that all Opposition Deputies, some under or-

ders of arrest but present only because of Parliamentary immunity, voted solidly for General Chehab.26

There was jubilation and fireworks behind Communist barricades that night. Murphy later called on Nasser to discuss his deft "antiCommunist" triumph, and Nasser "said he was pleased with the choice of General Chehab. He made voluble protestations of his desire to support the independence of Lebanon now that the hostile Chamoun propaganda machine would cease to function. . . ." 27 But there is more. Chehab now turned to the difficult job of selecting a Premier. He scouted around among the various candidates. And he selected Rashid Karami. He insisted on Karami. Rashid, as you will remember, was the leader of the Communist rebels in Tripoli. Chamoun's supporters had thought the deal to replace Chamoun with Chehab—arranged by Murphy—would bar ex-rebels from the Cabinet.28 They were wrong. Indeed, Karami, who also became minister of defense, now loaded his government with former rebels, 29 while conservative Republican anti-Communist Dulles benignly stood by. 307

Chamoun and his supporters—good friends of the United States—had now become the hunted rebels.

You will remember that during the summer, Chehab had
refused to do anything to defeat Karami, then waiting to be installed by Robert Murphy. The reason Chehab's friends gave was that "he didn't want to risk tearing the army apart,

which, like Lebanon's citizenry, is roughly half Christian, half Moslem. . . ." 30 Now, in late September, with Karami installed and President Chehab in command of the same army, there was new
fighting between the same sides. But:

Though U.S. forces were deployed through Beirut to protect American homes and supply lines, they never had to shoot. Chehab's own motorized troops enforced a round-theclock curfew and warned that any armed man would be shot
on sight. This toughness, which Chehab rarely showed as army chief in Chamoun's regime, helped convince U.S. of-

ficials they can go ahead with their calculated risk and evacuate the 9,600 remaining U.S. troops before November.31 They did. On October 25, the last of the American troops
folded their tents like the Arabs and silently stole away. The same battle which had brought them was still going on—the

battle which had brought them to "stop Communism" under the Eisenhower Doctrine—but now Karami and his Communists were safely installed. Newsweek reminds us that Karami "has publicly expressed
approval of eventual federation with Nasser's United Arab

moderate—practical, frank, sophisticated. . . ." 32

Republic. Does United States evacuation then mean a friendly nation is being abandoned to Cairo after all"? Don't be silly. "Despite Karami's statements (now standard stuff among most Arab politicians), Western officials describe him as a

On November 12, 1958, the Lebanese Parliament, by a vote of 39 to 1, gave Rashid Karami emergency powers, allowing him to rule by decree for the next six months.33 You will remember that what bothered Murphy about
Chamoun was that Chamoun might try to run for re-election. So what had happened here, as we see, was that John Foster Dulles had promised our help to prevent a Communist takeover; that a friend of America had asked for this help for that reason—and that conservative Republican anti-Commu308

nist Dulles had used the Marines to remove our friend and install our enemy.

It was quite a piece of work. The Master Statesman was well pleased. But still . . . there was something more . . . something more was needed to give it the inimitable, priceless Dulles touch. The average traitor, a Benedict Arnold or an Alger Hiss, would have been thoroughly content to take his cheese and find a hole—but remember that we are dealing here with an unusual performer. They don't call you the Master Statesman of All Time for nothing. The Master Statesman thought. He brooded. It was probably a grueling, creative process. The details are unavailable. But then he had it. On December 4, 1958, we learn that Karami has accepted the offer of $10 million in American aid.34 And a week later, Karami repudiates the Eisenhower Doctrine, as part of what officials in Washington say is Lebanon's "shift from a pro-Western to a neutralist position." 35 So in May, as we have seen, Karami begins this Communist operation by burning and sacking a United States Information Service library. In September, Dulles installs him as Prime Minister. And in December, Dulles rewards him with ten million dollars of your money. "Anti-Communism" had come to still another country! CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE: THE OPERETTA IN LEBANON
1. US News & World Report, Vol. 43, No. 13, September 27, 1957, p. 109. 2. Roscoe Drummond and Gaston Coblentz, Duel At the Brink (Garden City, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1960), p. 192. 3. US News & World Report, Vol. 45, No. 4, July 25, 1958, p. 67. 4. Edward Wakin, "Lebanon: Revolt in Waltz Time, The Nation, Vol. 187, No. 2, July 19, 1958, p. 29. 5. New York Times, September 18, 1958, p. 3. 6. Newsweek, Vol. 52, No. 14, October 6, 1958, p. 41. 7. Robert St. John, The Boss: The Story of Gamal Abdel Nasser (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1960), p. 296. 8. New York Times, July 31, 1958, p. 3. 9. US News & World Report, Vol. 45, No. 2, July 11, 1958, p. 62.

10. Newsweek, Vol. 52, No. 6, August 11, 1958, p. 30. 309

11. Life, Vol. 45, No. 6, August 11, 1958, p. 35. 12. US News & World Report, Vol. 45, No. 2, July 11, 1958, p. 60. 13. New York Times, August 13, 1958, p. 6. 14. Ibid., June 1, 1958, p. 19. 15. Ibid., August 1, 1958, p. 2. 16. Ibid., July 1, 1958, p. 6. 17. US News & World Report, Vol. 45, No. 4, July 25, 1958, p. 36. 18. Ibid., p. 74. 19. New York Times, August 13, 1958, p. 6. 20. Robert Murphy, Diplomat Among Warriors (Garden City, Doubleday and Company, 1964), p. 400. 21. US News & World Report, Vol. 45, No. 4, July 25, 1958, p. 75. 22. Newsweek, Vol. 52, No. 2, July 14, 1958, p. 35; New York Times, July 31, 1958, p. 3. 23. US News & World Report, Vol. 45, No. 2, July 11, 1958, p. 61. 24. Murphy, op. cit., p. 404. 25. Newsweek, Vol. 52, No. 14, October 6, 1958, p. 41. 26. New York Times, August 13, 1958, p. 6. 27. Murphy, op. cit., p. 411. 28. Newsweek, Vol. 52, No. 14, October 6, 1958, p. 41. 29. Ibid., Vol. 52, No. 15, October 13, 1958, p. 53. 30. Ibid., Vol. 52, No. 6, August 11, 1958, p. 30. 31. Ibid., Vol. 52, No. 14, October 6, 1958, pp. 41-42. 32. Ibid., p. 42. 33. Maurice Harari, "The Dynamics of Lebanese Nationalism," Current History, Vol. 36, No. 210, February, 1959, p. 101. 34. New York Times, December 4, 1958, p. 11. 35. Ibid., December 11, 1958, p. 2.


I have said very clearly that we are not Communists.1
Fidel Castro

Chapter Twenty-two: THE DELIVERY OF CUBA
IN HIS first speech as Secretary of State, Dulles remarked that "there are strong Communist movements in South America and Fascist influences in some quarters which are working away, largely underground so far, and they're trying to destroy the traditional friendship between the people of the American republics. . . ." And he criticized the "policy of neglect" of the previous administration, because "any such policy of neglect would lead to growing danger." 2 The Master Statesman got right to work. On October 1, 1953, for instance, Victor Paz Estenssoro, the Communist-Fascist ruler of Bolivia, wrote to Eisenhower and asked for aid. He got it. And sure enough, writes Alberto Ostria, the American aid handed to Estenssoro's National Revolutionary Movement (MNR)

only helped to keep the party in power. The foodstuffs thus acquired by the regime gave it a powerful weapon, for it could withhold them from anyone who did not present a party card. The result was that people joined the party in order not to die of hunger and membership rose to nearly two million. The receipt of foodstuffs also enabled the regime to save much-needed foreign exchange which it could then use to strengthen its position. 'Without United States aid,' the President told Associated Press correspondent Richard G. Massock, 'my Government would not have survived.'3
Indeed, writes Christopher Rand,

we took the M.N.R. under our wing, and that, rather cu311

riously, remained our policy through the Eisenhower period; a private-enterprise United States administration was supporting an arrantly Socialist experiment abroad. The defense of this anomaly fell largely to Milton Eisenhower, the President's brother. . . .4

Invoking the principle of innocence by association, we should assume that Milton Eisenhower is not a Communist. In 1954, there was trouble in Guatemala. Four years earlier, after the usual agitation and infiltration, a Communist named Jacobo Arbenz Guzman had come to power. Arbenz naturally denied his "government" was Communist—it goes without saying—but Eisenhower recalls that by the middle of October 1953, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs John Moors Cabot, for instance, was saying that Guatemala was "openly playing the Communist game." 5 Our new Ambassador, John E. Peurifoy, concluded: [Arbenz] thought like a Communist and talked like a Communist, and if not actually one, would do until one came along. I so reported to Secretary Dulles, who informed the President; and I expressed to them the view that unless the Communist influences in Guatemala were counteracted, Guatemala would within six months fall completely under Communist control.6 And, by the middle of June 1954, the Guatemalan Socialists were arranging assassinations and strikes in other Central American countries, and mass arrests and murders in their own. On June 18, Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, a Guatemalan exile, invaded from Honduras with a handful of men, picked up more and more recruits, and eventually succeeded in deposing Arbenz, a victory "largely due," says former Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America Spruille Braden, "to the vigorous military and financial support given by another Central American republic. . . . The Red regime did not have time to get rid of the army—and the army finally threw out the Reds." 7 So in 1954, the Communists were openly trying to grab Guatemala, were denying it, and conservative Republican anti-Communist Dulles was thoroughly aware of it. Among the murderers and degenerates who escaped with Arbenz, was an aspiring Socialist named Ernesto Guevara— "Che" Guevara—"who was known to be a 'genuine' Communist. . . ."8 312

In December 1956, a gentleman named Fidel Castro—a Communist—landed with some colleagues in Oriente province, in eastern Cuba, and proceeded to the hills of the Sierra Maestra. In January 1959, only two years later, Castro was Communist dictator of Cuba. It is generally assumed that Dulles had been deceived— that he just "didn't know" what Castro was, and had "no idea" how he came to power. Let's have a look at how likely this was. The Bogotazo was the first sizeable Communist military operation in the Western hemisphere. It was planned, begun, staffed and conducted by the Communists, and designed to wreck the Ninth Inter-American Conference of the Organization of American States, in Bogota, Colombia, on April 9, 1948.9 And Fidel Castro was one of the Soviet agents brought to Bogota for that purpose. A United Press dispatch from Bogota, dated April 19, by Lacides Orozco, relates that on that day, two detectives came to the Claridge Hotel, looking for Fidel Castro and Rafael del Pino, who had been staying there.
The two detectives took possession of the Cubans' correspondence, which they opened in my presence, and said that they were in possession of reliable information to the effect that Castro and del Pino had been leading the looting on the 9th April on the occasion of the assassination of the Liberal leader, Jorge Eliecer Gaitan. The correspondence showed that both the Cubans belonged to the Cuban Communist Party, and the letters, which are dated Havana 9th April mention the Bogota riots.10

Indeed, William D. Pawley, former American Ambassador to Brazil and Peru, testifies that less than an hour after the assassination, he heard the following on his car radio: "This is Fidel Castro from Cuba. This is a Communist revolution. The President has been killed, all of the military establishments are now in our hands. The Navy has capitulated to us, and this revolution has been a success." 11 Nathaniel Weyl concludes: Bogota provided massive circumstantial evidence of Fidel Castro's early affiliation with International Communism. Security Chief Nino referred to 'the known Communists, Fidel Castro and Rafael del Pino.' The President of Co313

lombia, Mariano Ospina Perez, denounced the Cubans as 'Communists' and organizers of the insurrection in a nationwide radio speech delivered a few days after the tragedy. The distinguished Colombian reporter, Fandino Silva, also named Castro as one of the International Communist agents who prepared and helped direct the rising. . . .12

In 1953, Arthur Gardner became our Ambassador to Cuba. Mr. Gardner had rather unorthodox qualifications for service as an official in the Department of State. He was an American. And sure enough, he soon was in Washington, telling the State Department that Castro "talked and acted like a Communist, and should not be supported by the United States." He testifies that: " . . . We all knew—I think everybody knew—that his brother Raul was a Communist. . . ."13 In 1957, a letter written by Castro fell into the hands of Chilean authorities and was circulated widely. "In that letter, Castro made his political ideology known," foreign minister Unda Murillo told president Ydigoras Fuentes. "He said that he was fighting for socialism because it was the salvation of the world. He made a lengthy defense of communism in both Russia and China and he ended the letter saying that if his revolution triumphed, he would impose communism on Cuba." Indeed, says Ydigoras, "The mere fact that Ernest 'Che' Guevara was his right hand man was sufficient for us to consider Castro with the utmost suspicion. . . ."14 Also in 1957, we learn of a raid on Castro's Mexican headquarters, conducted by the Mexican police on June 21, 1956:

Six days after the arrests were made, the police announced that they had uncovered proof that the movement was definitely under the patronage of Communist organizations, and inspired by them. Several of the dossiers mentioned Communist or left-wing activities in the past, and two of the men taken into custody . . . were definitely identified as members of the Young Communist Party in Cuba. One of the leaders who share the command with Castro, we read, is "Che" Guevara, "the principal link between Castro and international Communist organizations. . . ." None of this was secret information. It was printed in the August 24, 1957 issue of National Review, a magazine published in New York and available to subscribers.15 And in December, we read that "during August, Russian 314

submarines twice surfaced off Cuba and discharged munitions for Castro's forces." Which was no secret either. It was printed in the December issue of Intelligence Digest, a magazine published in London and also available to subscribers.16 It is possible, of course, that conservative Republican anti-Communist Dulles was not a reader of National Review, and that Central Intelligence Agency chief Alien Dulles did not subscribe to Intelligence Digest. Nineteen fifty-eight was quite a year. In January, our current Ambassador to Cuba, Earl E.T. Smith—another American—held a press conference at the State Department, where he said that the United States could not do business with Castro. He said it was questionable whether Castro would honor Cuba's international obligations. And he said that the Castro gang was infiltrated by Communists.17 How likely was it, do you think, that John Foster Dulles didn't know what Smith had said? By this time, says Smith,
the State Department's own Bureau of Research and Intelligence conceded that at least one top leader (Che Guevara) was a Marxist and that there were reports of Communist infiltration. . . . [And in March, he notified the Department that] the Cuban Army had announced the previous evening that Radio Moscow had made shortwave broadcasts asking that Castro forces be aided and abetted in overthrowing the government of Cuba. Radio Moscow throughout 1958 supported the 26th of July Movement." 18 It is possible, of course, that Dulles had no access to a shortwave radio. In the summer of 1958, Raul Castro kidnapped forty-seven Americans, including thirty-one unarmed American marines. You will remember that according to the testimony of Ambassador Gardner, everybody in the State Department knew Raul was a Communist. How likely was it, do you think, that Dulles didn't know, and didn't know about the kidnappings? Indeed, says Ambassador Smith, after the kidnappings, the Bureau of Research and Intelligence pointed out that the rebels were anti-American; that Communists had penetrated the lower ranks of the revolu315

tionaries and admitted Communist sympathizers held top jobs in the movement.19 How likely was it in fact, do you think, that Dulles didn't
know Castro was causing repeated riots; that bombs were left

in the public places, in theaters, schools, supermarkets, stores —anywhere a crowd might gather—and that women and
children were killed and maimed? 20

How likely was it that Dulles didn't know Castro was harassing American citizens, American property owners and the Yateras water plant; that there were depredations against the United States Government-owned 100 million dollar Nicaro Nickel properties; that Cuban commercial airliners with Americans aboard were hijacked; that American firms suffered huge losses from sabotage and confiscation; that, indeed, by the closing months of the Batista era—exactly as in the great Cagney gangster movies—American firms were buying "protection" from Castro's gang? 21

On November 23, 1958, Ambassador Smith was in Washington again, still trying, still under the impression that the Department of State under Dulles was an agency of our government. And Robert Murphy, fresh from the delivery of Lebanon to Karami, asked him whether he thought the Castro outfit was Communist or not. He answered: If I may have a jury of twelve unbiased people I will be willing to put up $100,000 that I can convince all the members of the jury within twenty-four hours that the Castro movement is infiltrated and controlled by the Communists. If I am unable to convince the jury, the money may be donated to any charity stipulated by the State Department. . . .22 Smith's offer was not accepted. He got nowhere at all. It is possible that Murphy forgot to mention it to Dulles. And finally there is the fact that Dulles now threw that party for his friend Mikoyan, who there explained, says Murphy, "that he was going to Havana on a good will visit in the hope of setting up a trade mission." But that didn't fool the crowd from the Department. Not one bit: In the State Department the next morning we speculated on Mikoyan's real motive and concluded that the trade mission would be a cover for clandestine and subversive operations throughout the hemisphere. . . .23 316

So unfortunately, there just isn't any chance at all that Dulles didn't know. Indeed, the conclusion that Dulles knew the truth about Fidel Castro, isn't simply the most reasonable of several reasonable choices—the Everest of evidence recorded here makes any other conclusion impossible. In fact, conservative Republican anti-Communist Dulles not only knew ten times the evidence recorded here—as Secretary of State he knew ten times ten times what the rest of us will ever know. And there is more. It seems that Dulles wasn't simply a disinterested observer of the passing parade. By 1957, he was fully aware that Ambassador Gardner was a dangerous agent of the hated Americans. Dulles replaced him in June with Ambassador Smith, who as we have seen is another American. There is a very good reason for what may at first seem still another incredible lapse in State Department security, and it is to be found in the testimony of Robert C. Hill, former assistant secretary of state for Congressional Relations and Ambassador to Mexico, Costa Rica and El Salvador:

I said, 'Earl, I am sorry that you are going to Cuba. You might be interested to know that "Chip" Bohlen was supposed to go to Cuba.' This sort of set him back. He said, 'What do you mean, that Ambassador Bohlen was going to be transferred from Moscow to Havana?' I said, That was the plan a few months ago. Then the President and Secretary Dulles decided to send him to Manila. You are assigned to Cuba to preside over the downfall of Batista. The decision has been made that Batista has to go. You must be very careful.' Indeed, says Ambassador Hill, "It was common knowledge in the Department of State that Batista had to go. I told Ambassador Smith this. "The Chairman: That Castro would come into power? "Mr. Hill: That is correct. . . ." 24 Could anything be clearer? The decision had been made to deliver Cuba to Fidel Castro—it was "common knowledge" —and the decision was made by John Foster Dulles. Now why would Dulles originally decide to transfer Bohlen from Moscow to Havana, and then change his mind and send Smith? Well, Bohlen would naturally occur to him as a man eminently qualified to supervise the delivery of still another


country to Communist slavery, because Bohlen had participated in the Yalta betrayal only twelve years before. And then Dulles would reject him for the very same reason. You will remember that it was his nomination of Bohlen as Ambassador to Russia, only four years before, that had caused one of the earliest battles between Dulles and the Republicans; and that the battle got worse when Bohlen told examining senators that he saw nothing wrong with the Yalta arrangements. Imagine that you are planning the delivery of still another country to a Fidel Castro and that success depends almost completely on secrecy. Would you attract attention by appointing a Bohlen—or would you lull suspicion by appointing a Smith? Now how was the delivery actually made? It happened that Castro's agents were openly violating our criminal code and neutrality laws by training recruits in demolition and sabotage; by the exportation of arms and men; and by launching armed expeditions from the Florida coast.25 Carlos Prio Socarras, for instance, was indicted, tried and convicted of gun running. His "punishment" was a fine of $5,000. He was indicted a second time, but wasn't even tried.26 And yet at the same time, Dulles denied arms to the recognized government. On January 16, 1958, for instance, Smith was authorized to inform Batista that in exchange for the restoration of constitutional guarantees, he would get twenty armored cars on order for nine months. On January 25, Batista restored the guarantees. The armored cars weren't delivered.27 Then there were the fifteen training planes which had been bought and paid for by the Cuban Air Force. The State Department naturally prevented delivery, but Smith protested that "the only ones who would eventually benefit from our policy were the Communists," and delivery finally had to be approved. For three months, the government of Cuba tried to get the planes.
and servicing. On March 14, 1958, the State Department issued an order suspending the shipment of 1,950 Garand rifles which had been bought and paid for by the government of Cuba and were on the docks ready for delivery. 318

They didn't. But they did get a bill from the Department for storage 28

Indeed, on that day, the Department imposed a total embargo on arms to Cuba.29
On March 24, Smith sent the Department a telegram, in

which he "once again stated that if the government of Cuba fell, the only ones to benefit would be the Communists." 30 Not only did the State Department refuse to reconsider its arms embargo—while allowing tons of the very same supplies
to be sent openly from Florida to Castro, in criminal violation of our neutrality laws—it also pressured other govern-

ments to join the embargo.31 Arms had been supplied before the embargo for hemisphere defense against Communist subversion. Now it was becoming more and more obvious that the Castro operation was Communist-controlled—and Dulles shut the arms off. Smith concludes: There can be no doubt that the decision by the State Department to suspend the shipment of arms to Cuba was the most effective step taken by the Department of State in bringing about the downfall of Batista. . . .32

It was of course the same technique used in the delivery of China, in which an arms embargo was imposed on Chiang Kai-shek, and the Japanese arms in Manchuria were handed to Mao. But a question arises: Batista was of course exactly the sort of man with whom Americans feel at home—a corrupt, dictatorial crook, who had stolen a few million dollars of public money—the sort we elect every other year to important positions in American government. It was obvious that Batista had to go. So couldn't it be that Dulles installed Castro by mistake—in the wake of his libertarian rush to get rid of Batista? Couldn't it be that the only alternative to Batista unfortunately was Castro? Says Ambassador Smith: It is incorrect to assume that the only opposition to Batista was Castro and his followers. A powerful anti-Batista element existed that was not terroristic. It represented the middle class and the intelligentsia of the country. I regarded this as the legal opposition, and included in this element were men who were capable of governing the country. . . .83 And in 1958, Batista agreed to hold honest elections and step down when his term expired in February 1959. In fact, Smith asked the Department for permission to discuss with Batista the possibility of his leaving the country 319

during the elections—which would be supervised by a provisional government to ensure honesty—and the State Department turned him down.34 So Smith concludes: By no longer openly supporting the existing government of Cuba, the United States helped Castro rise to power in preference to a number of politically sound and friendly leaders we might have supported. . . .35 Dulles installed Castro simply because Fidel Castro was the man he preferred. This is very strong stuff, isn't it—rather an unusual preference for a "conservative Republican anti-Communist." What did the "anti-Communist" have to say about all this? On October 4, 1957, former Ambassador to Cuba Spruille Braden sent "an urgent message to Secretary Dulles." I emphasized that while I had had my difficulties with Batista, a continuance of our policies of allowing arms to be smuggled to Castro while prohibiting the export thereof to the recognized government, inevitably would convince the people of that island that we were supporting Fidel and so would bring—as it actually did—'Castro, chaos, and Communism' to Cuba. Dulles gave me his answer when at his press conference on November 6, 1957 he said 'there was no danger of Communism in the other American republics.' 36

So here we are asked to believe not only that the most expensive attorney in the United States has absolutely no idea what is going on, but that he has investigated the matter— this is the clear implication of his statement—and was unable to find out what was already available in his public library. Can you imagine how stupid Dulles must have thought we are? Don't bother trying—you can't. It seems that early in 1959, with Castro safely installed, Dulles met with Smith, at Smith's request:
... At that time, the Secretary asked me if I could explain how it happened that Batista lost control to Castro. ... I would not presume to guess the reasons for the Secretary's remarks or his line of thinking. He apparently had not been completely informed as to the background of the Castro brothers until it was too late. . . .37 Ambassador Smith is one of those who still believe, as you 320

may, and as I did, that conservative Republican anti-Communist Dulles just "didn't know." You have to think that, don't you. You just have to. But observe that the way he writes it, Ambassador Smith seems slightly nervous—slightly nervous and very puzzled. What worries him is possibly that, according to material which belongs in the previous quotation: the Secretary asked me if I could explain how it happened that Batista lost control to Castro, in view of all the arms and military equipment owned by the Batista government, plus the support of his Air Force. . . .38 (Italics added) Dulles apparently was trying to prove to Smith that there was so much he "didn't know," so much that he didn't even know about the fifteen training planes which had been delayed— and that he didn't even known about his own arms embargo. And finally there is a single devastating fact which makes unnecessary everything else—because it issues from the mouth of Dwight D. Eisenhower himself: During the rush of these last events in the final days of 1958, the Central Intelligence Agency suggested for the first time that a Castro victory might not be in the best interests of the United States. (Earlier reports which I had received of Castro's possible Communism were suspect because they originated with people who favored Batista.) 'Communists and other extreme radicals appear to have penetrated the Castro movement,' Alien Dulles said. 'If Castro takes over, they will probably participate in the government.' When I heard this estimate, I was understandably provoked. Even if we could find proof of his Communist beliefs, our task would be many times harder with Castro in power.39 Now remember, this isn't our idea. We aren't putting words in anyone's mouth. This is straight from Dwight D. Eisenhower. Let's go through it again to make sure we have it right. Eisenhower had earlier heard suspect reports that Castro was a Communist. Now Alien Dulles tells him that Castro may be a Communist after all. If Castro takes over, says the Central Intelligence Agency chief, the Communists will move into the government. This would be very bad for the United States. Dwight D. Eisenhower was "understandably provoked." 321

And Eisenhower knew all this—knew it for sure—in "the final days of 1958." He knew it, to be exact, on or before December 31, 1958—and probably some time before, as the phrase "final days" would suggest. And yet conservative Republican anti-Communist Dulles and "Modern Republican anti-Communist" Eisenhower now did nothing to prevent a Castro takeover. In fact, on January 7, 1959—a week or more later— Dulles and Eisenhower recognized the Castro "government," only six days after Batista had fled, without the usual assurances that Castro would honor international obligations, and before he had even arrived in Havana—in other words, before it was certain that it was a government—which of course was an extraordinary departure from normal American diplomatic practice. So they knew a Castro victory would be dangerous; they knew that the one thing Castro wanted now was American certification that his band of criminals was a "government" which the President of the United States would deal with— they knew in fact that Castro could not survive without it— and Dulles and Eisenhower gave him exactly what he needed. Indeed, in April 1959, as you will recall, when according to Eisenhower he had now known for almost four months that Castro might be dangerous to the United States, he allowed the Bearded Beast to come here to collect the publicity he needed to solidify his control. We read that at Washington National Airport, ". . . State Department representatives admitted they were working in close harmony with Castro's agents, to hustle identified antiCastroites off the premises. . . ." 40 So there really is only one conclusion, isn't there? We don't want to draw it, of course. Nobody does. But no other conclusion even faintly makes sense. Dulles and Eisenhower knew about the Communist background of Fidel Castro—they knew a hundred times more than anybody else will ever know—and yet they deliberately installed Castro in power because the decision had been made to turn Cuba into a Communist dictatorship. CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO: THE DELIVERY OF CUBA
1. New York Times, April 18, 1959, 2. Ibid., January 28,1953, p. 8. 322 p. 1.

3. Alberto Ostria Gutierrez, The Tragedy of Bolivia (New York, The Devin-Adair Company, 1958). 4. Christopher Rand, "Letter From La Paz," The New Yorker, December 31, 1966, p. 50. 5. Quoted in Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change (Garden City, Doubleday & Company, 1963), p. 422. Or see New York Times, October 15, 1953, p. 13. 6. From Peurifoy testimony before Subcommittee on Latin America of the House Select Committee on Communist Aggression, October 8, 1954. Quoted in Eisenhower, op. cit., p. 422. And see New York Times, October 9, 1954, p. 4. 7. Interview with publisher of El Diario do Nueva York, quoted in Nathaniel Weyl, Red Star Over Cuba: The Russian Assault on the Western Hemisphere (New York, Hillman Books, 1961), pp. 208-09. 8. Miguel Ydigoras Fuentes, My War With Communism (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, Inc., 1963), p. 13. 9. Earl E. T. Smith, The Fourth Floor: An Account of the Castro Communist Revolution (New York, Random House, 1962), p. 67. And Weyl, op. cit., pp. 5-6, p. 66ff. 10. Weyl, op. cit., p. 93. 11. Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Internal Security, Senate, Communist Threat to the United States Through the Caribbean, Hearings, (Wash., D.C., U.S. Gov't. Print. Off., 1961), part 10. Quoted in Weyl, op. cit., p. 98. 12. Weyl, op. cit., p. 94. 13. Ibid., pp. 179-80. Or see Bryton Barron, The Untouchable State Department, (Springfield (Virginia), Crestwood Books, 1962), pp. 109-10. 14. Ydigoras, op. cit., pp. 12-13. 15. Alice-Leone Moats, "The Strange Past of Fidel Castro," National Review, Vol. 4, No. 7, August 24, 1957, p. 156. 16. Intelligence Digest, London, December, 1957. Quoted in Weyl, op. cit., p. 158.

17. Weyl, op. cit., p. 182. 18. Smith, op. cit., pp. 37, 159. 19. Ibid., p. 159. 20. Ibid., pp. 41, 76-78. It is interesting to observe that after January 25, 1958, when Batista restored constitutional guarantees, Castro intensified these activities. 21. Weyl, op. cit., p. 158. And Smith, op. cit., p. 122. 22. Smith, op. cit., p. 161. 23. Robert Murphy, Diplomat Among Warriors (Garden City, Doubleday & Company, 1964), p. 442. 24. Smith, op. cit., pp. 119-20. 25. Ibid., p. 123. 26. Weyl, op. cit., p. 158. 27. Smith, op. cit., pp. 60, 64-65. 28. Ibid., pp. 137-38. 323

29. Ibid., pp. 84-85. And New York Times, April 3, 1958, p. 1. 30. Smith, op. cit., p. 91. 31. Ibid., pp. 56, 100. 32. Ibid., p. 107. 33. Ibid., pp. 29-30. 34. Ibid., p. 92. 35. Ibid., p. 49. 36. Letter to the author, March 7, 1966. 37. Smith, op. cit., pp. 228-29. 38. Loc. cit. 39. Dwight D. Eisenhower, The White House Years: Waging Peace 1956-60 (New York, Doubleday and Co., 1965). Quoted in Boston Herald, October 7, 1965, p. 10. 40. Human Events. Quoted in Bryton Barron, The Untouchable State Department (Springfield, Virginia, Crestwood Books, 1962), p. 68.


. . . after all, there is such a thing as public opinion in the world, there is the reading public, living people, who want to know the facts, and it is quite impossible to hold them in the vise of deception for long. Deception does not carry one far.1
Joseph Stalin

Chapter Twenty-three: THE WEB OF SUBVERSION
IN 1917, the band of criminals led by Lenin had finally grabbed the government of Russia. They had consolidated their power and then, as we know, had begun to grab still more governments, one after the other. And this group of Marxian Socialists has come to be known as the Conspiracy. As we have seen, however, Colonel House and his fellow Marxian Socialists were busy in the United States long before the Marxian Socialist coup in Russia. You will remember, for instance, that the Intercollegiate Socialist Society was founded in New York in 1905, when Lenin was just a frustrated psychopath. And further back, even well back in the nineteenth century, there was extensive Marxian Socialist activity in America. Like the Marxian Socialists scheming in Russia, the Marxian Socialists in America were actively scheming to grab their government, to socialize it, and then go on to socialize the world. As we have seen, for instance, they arranged the centralization of credit recommended by Marx in the Communist Manifesto, the graduated income tax recommended by Marx in the Communist Manifesto, and the estate tax recommended by Marx in the Communist Manifesto. As Dulles himself later remarked: Already, in this country, steeply graduated income and estate taxes bring society close to the professed Communist goal, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.' This is a noble ideal. . . .2 325

There was also the Marxian Socialist nest in Germany. And there were the very influential Marxian Socialists destroying England: the Fabian Socialists. And wherever they were, the various Marxian Socialists collaborated closely. American graduate students studied in Germany under professors who had got it straight from Marx himself. Lenin studied and strongly recommended the English Marxian Socialists, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, who came to the United States even before the turn of the century to scheme and consult with their American colleagues—as did Leon Trotsky in 1905. The point is that as Marx had prescribed, Marxian Socialism was international. Wherever Marxian Socialists had happened to be born and happened to live—they were all part of the same operation. After all, if you are working in a certain way toward a certain end, you will naturally be attracted by and cooperate with anybody working in the same way toward the same end, won't you? But the question arises: If all this is true, why did Lenin establish the Communist Party? Doesn't this prove there is some basic difference between it—and all the other Marxian Socialists? Not at all. Lenin called his gang the Communist Party simply to emphasize that he was the Marxian Socialist who had finally grabbed Russia—he and not some rival Marxian Socialist. Observe that Lenin changed the name of his gang to the Communist Party, only on March 8, 1918—four months after he grabbed the country—which means, does it not, that it wasn't the Communist Party which grabbed Russia at all.3 It was in fact Lenin's faction of the Russian Social Democratic Party—an aspiring band of Marxian Socialists. Observe too that Lenin also changed the name of the country he had grabbed to the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, which later became the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and that Communists are still raving about the "glories of Socialism"—which indicates that in becoming Communists they remained the same: the same, feudalistic Marxian Socialists. So the Communist Party was nothing new, nothing different; it was simply Lenin's way of announcing that as the Marxian Socialist who had succeeded, as the winner of the murderous rivalry produced by all systems based on force, he now qualified as Marxian Socialist dictator of the world proletariat. 326

And, similarly, just because Lenin's gang got lucky and became the Communist Party, didn't mean that any Marxian Socialist who didn't belong to it became something else. It didn't even make him any less a Marxian Socialist. It simply made him an envious Marxian Socialist. The Conspiracy, then, is properly not just another name for the Communist Party. It includes the Communist Party. It consists of Marxian Socialists throughout the world, who are collaborating—and competing—to replace freedom with Marxian Socialism. If the small band of Marxian Socialists controlled by Lenin had failed in Petrograd in 1917, had been wiped out—which was perfectly possible, after all, given anybody facing them other than Kerensky—the Conspiracy would still exist, would still be working toward its Marxian Socialist goal, and the United States would still have to deal with it. It is therefore perfectly possible, to be a member of one or another parts of the Marxian Socialist Conspiracy—and still never be a member of the Communist Party. Indeed, Karl Marx, author of the Communist Manifesto and of the school of nonsense which bears his name, was certainly a fairly influential member of his own Conspiracy— and yet he was never a member of the Communist Party. He died in 1883, some thirty-five years before the Communist Party was formed. Marx was for years one of the leaders of the Conspiracy, and yet wasn't what today is called a "Communist." He used the word not necessarily to indicate a member of a specific organization, but to describe a man with Marxist principles and Marxist goals—what we today would call a Marxist. And therefore, I wish to make a serious proposal: to increase understanding and lessen confusion, we should no longer call it the International Communist Conspiracy, but the International Marxist Conspiracy. The Communists until recently have been regarded quite naturally as the only enemy, simply because they were the first to grab and keep a country openly. Now, why do we call the thing we are up against a conspiracy at all? The only puzzling thing about this question is that we have to take the time to ask it. We call it a conspiracy simply because that is what the dictionary says we should call it: A conspiracy, we read, is "a planning and acting together secretly, especially for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason." 4 It is "an agreement, manifesting itself 327

in words or deeds, by which two or more persons confederate to do an unlawful act. . . ." 5 Observe that the definitions say nothing at all about party cards; a conspiracy can be arranged not only by the deed of signing a card, but simply by saying the words necessary to arrange it. Indeed, cards used to be issued by the Communist Party simply to create the spurious impression that it is a legitimate political organization. Observe that in order to qualify, an outfit must be organized for an unlawful or harmful purpose—such as treason— and that the International Marxist Conspiracy is specifically organized to destroy the independence of the United States, to grab its government and subdue its people. And observe that a conspiracy always works in secret, simply because, since it is after an evil end, very few people and no humane beings at all will knowingly agree to it. You will remember that Marxist conspirator Colonel House, through the big mouth of Philip Dru, explained that the socializing should be done "gently and with moderation, so that some at least may listen. If we would convince and convert, we must veil our thoughts and curb our enthusiasm, so that those we would influence will think us reasonable." Then there was Marxist conspirator Albion Small, who urged Marxist conspirator Lester Ward to do just that, because people would "follow you very much further and would accept very much more of your instruction, than they will consent to take when they see in what direction it tends." 6 Indeed, in 1917, Marxist conspirator Roger Baldwin advised a colleague to "steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise," because "We want also to look like patriots in everything we do." 7 In fact, when former Communist spy Elizabeth Bentley was first ordered into the Communist underground, her boss in the International Marxist Conspiracy told her as follows:
You are now no longer an ordinary Communist but a member of the underground. You must cut yourself off completely from all your old Communist friends. If you happen to meet them and they get curious, you will have to tell them that you have dropped out of the Party. You cannot even be known as a 'liberal' and move in progressive circles. Instead, you must pose as an ultraconservative, with a slight leaning toward Fascism.8 (Italics added) She was told to do that as part of the perennial Marxist 328

campaign to neutralize Americans, by claiming that the only alternative to Marxism is Fascism—which all good Americans will also denounce. But a question arises: As we have seen, Colonel House said, by way of Dru, that not only the poor, but the rich, too, should be recruited into the Conspiracy. Indeed, you will remember that soon after the election of Woodrow Wilson, House met with some of the wealthiest men in America—and convinced them to endorse his plan to impose the Communist Manifesto on the American people. Now why would such men support Marxian Socialism? Isn't this some sort of contradiction? What is their motive? The problem here is caused by perhaps the biggest lie the Socialists have told: that Socialism is a "mass movement" of "oppressed people," who "rise up" from the "lower depths." The truth is that a starving man simply has no time to lay the complicated plans for a Socialist coup, does he. He's too busy looking for food. A sick man can't. He's sick. And an illiterate luckily cannot undergo the unbearable experience of reading Marx. Observe further that the Russian people did not "rise up" for Socialism in 1917. What happened was that Lenin and his small band of thugs simply grabbed the strategic, military objectives in the city of Petrograd, such as the telephone exchange, and immediately began issuing orders. He grabbed the country at the top—at the government—and then pressed the Socialism down on the people. It wasn't a revolution at all, but a coup. And observe that the very same thing happened in Czechoslovakia when the Socialists came out of the government, where they had been hiding all along, openly took over, and then as usual pressed the Socialism down. It happened in Poland. It happened in Cuba, where in May 1958, a full yearand-a-half after Castro landed to "free" the country, and only seven months before he was finally installed, his "mass movement" still consisted of only 300 armed men. The point is that Socialism isn't caused by "the masses," at all. It is caused by people like Fidel Castro, a student at Havana University Law School—with an allowance of $200 a month—and the son of a man of considerable wealth; by people like Lenin, a minor nobleman; like Alger Hiss, a highly educated member of the bar; and like Freddie Field, a millionaire. 329

Socialism is caused only by a handful of wealthy, healthy, well-educated and well-fed criminals—by Socialists. And the only reason they cause it is simply to take power —totalitarian power—simply for the perverse pleasure of telling people what to do. There just isn't anything more to Socialism than that. Indeed, the Socialists themselves openly say so. A "dictatorship of the proletariat" is, after all, a dictatorship, isn't it. As Marxian Socialist George Bernard Shaw put it:

We, as socialists, have nothing to do with liberty. Our message, like Mussolini's, is one of discipline, of service, of ruthless refusal to acknowledge any natural right of competence. . . .9

And Thomas Davidson, one of the founders of the Fabian Socialist Society, warned as follows somewhat later: ... If socialism once realized should prove abortive, and throw power and wealth into the hands of a class, that class would be able to maintain itself against all opposition, just as the feudal chiefs did for so long. Feudalism was socialism; that is often forgotten.10 This is why so many alleged businessmen joined Colonel House. As we have seen, for instance, his Communist income tax created the system of tax-exempt foundations; Marx has been good for our millionaires. The point is that government is force, as Washington said —nothing but force—and when you mix it with economics, under the pretext of helping the people, somebody always winds up with absolute power. You will remember that under the Roman Empire—which was a succession of a dictatorship—the dictators stayed in power by suckering the people with bread and circuses. Indeed, the same thing happened recently in Germany, where some crooked businessmen joined forces with a bureaucrat named Hitler. It would be helpful to compare the Conspiracy with another conspiracy we know much more about: the gang of ordinary criminals known as the Mafia, or Cosa Nostra—or even the Chicago gang of old. We can be absolutely sure it really exists, can't we—Bobby Kennedy says so. And yet, summoned to testify, its members deny it. Like the International Marxist Conspiracy, or any other conspiracy, it naturally operates in strictest secrecy. It is difficult to quit. Those who try it are usually rubbed out. 330

Indeed, the Mafia doesn't issue any membership cards, does it. The conspiracy consists, according to definition, simply of their working together in secret toward an evil end. So the police use among others the principle of guilt by association, don't they. They reason—and nobody argues about this—that if a man enthusiastically associates with known criminals for years, it says something about the man who is doing the associating. And there is the fact that on a much smaller scale, the gang also uses the technique of infiltration. Indeed, we are all familiar with that type of attorney, ostensibly a member of the city government, who is secretly a member of some sort of criminal conspiracy. It happens. Nobody ever believes it, of course, because the attorney always diligently pretends to be hunting the conspirators, goes to church every Sunday and wears striped trousers—while the Mafiosi, the Legs Diaonds, the Fidel Castro types, they don't go to church and don't wear striped trousers. They are nothing but common criminals. Yet the attorney is just as much a member as anyone else, isn't he, and when the truth finally is revealed he is locked up with the others. But perhaps most interesting is the fact that the Chicago gangster also has an ideology, rudimentary though it is. He visits the local businessmen and sells them "protection," doesn't he—which, as we have seen, is exactly what Castro did in Cuba. It is obvious to all, of course, that the victim needs to be protected from The Boss—who is selling the "protection"—but The Boss goes through the charade in a primitive attempt to imply that he is robbing the victim for the victim's own good. Now imagine that The Boss—like Fidel Castro—were to develop this rudimentary piece of Socialist talent into a "system." Suppose he were to concoct a thousand other things the citizen "needs," and a thousand reasons he "needs" them. Suppose in fact he were to hire, not just another couple of headbusters, but a "philosopher," a "clergyman," and a taxexempt foundation. The thing he would end up with is the International Marxist Conspiracy.




1. Joseph Stalin, Problems of Leninism (Moscow, Foreign
Languages Publishing House, 1953), p. 694.

2. John Foster Dulles, "The Blessings of Liberty," speech delivered before the American Political Science Association,
December 28, 1949, in Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. 16,

No. 8, February 1, 1950, p. 233.
3. William Henry Chamberlin, The Russian Revolution,

1917-1921 (New York, Macmillan Company, 1935), Vol. 2, p. 528.
4. Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (college edition), (New York, World Publishing Com-

pany, 1956), p. 314.
5. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, Massachusetts, G & C Merriam Co., 1951), p. 178. 6. Bernhard J. Stern, "Letters of Albion W. Small to Lester F. Ward," Social Forces, December, 1933. Quoted in Zygmund Dobbs (research director), The Great Deceit: Social Pseudo-Sciences (West Sayville, New York, Veritas Foundation, 1964), p. 166. 7. Lusk Committee Report, p. 1088. Quoted in Dobbs, op. cit., p. 212. 8. Elizabeth Bentley, Out of Bondage (New York, DevinAdair Company, 1951), p. 97. 9. Margaret Cole, The Story of Fabian Socialism (Stanford, California, Stanford U. Press, 1961), p. 197. Quoted in Dobbs, op. cit., p. 144. 10. William Knight (editor), Memorials of Thomas Davidson (Boston, Ginn & Co., 1907), p. 143. Quoted in Dobbs. op. cit., p. 109.


... It is necessary now, as it has always been necessary, to look behind words of individuals to find from their actions what their true purpose is.1

John Foster Dulles

Chapter Twenty—four:


WE ARRIVE at last at the moment of truth. We have seen what Dulles really did. But now we have to ask why he did it. Now we have to ask what John Foster Dulles really was. It will be a hard thing, a painful thing. Of course. And we all feel reluctant to do it. What we are feeling is very probably what we would have felt when first presented with the true story of Benedict Arnold: a combination of reluctance to admit we have been victimized; the emotional hangover of the idea that a man so honored must have been a great American; and our simple desire to believe the best. But it must be done, not just to be vindictive, or even to apply the necessary retribution, but because there is no other way to save America from eventual destruction. If we don't do it, there will be more Dulleses—more "conservative Republican anti-Communists"—secretly working to enslave our people under a totalitarian Marxist dictatorship. We must now say what the man was, say it clearly, repeat it and keep repeating it. So let's begin with the important job of saying what John Foster Dulles definitely was not. And he definitely was not an anti-Communist. For forty years, as we have seen—from his own mouth and own actions—he wrote, spoke, schemed and organized to advance the cause of Marxian Socialism; to socialize America, and the world. And it is a simple matter of definition that a genuine antiCommunist just doesn't advance the cause of Marxian Socialism. Another thing Dulles definitely wasn't was a conservative Republican—or any kind of Republican. For forty years, as We have seen—from his own mouth and actions—he masqueraded as a Republican, and in association with such 333

phony Democrats as Alger Hiss, deviously advanced Marxian Socialism by means of the slogan of "bipartisanship." But a genuine Republican, or a genuine Democrat, is fiercely partisan. He doesn't participate in a charade every four years, to keep Americans under the impression that they still have a genuine, political choice in a two-party system. He doesn't deviously control both parties—as Colonel House suggested—to prevent the people from voting on dissenting ideas. He isn't partisan—as Dulles was—purely and strictly for Marxian Socialism. Take the case of Harry Truman, for instance. It is true, of course, that as Presidential timber, he makes a pretty good toothpick. And it is true that the Conspiracy profited enormously from his tenure. But it is also true that Harry Truman is a thoroughly loyal American. His writings and speeches show not only no admiration, but strong distaste, for Marxian Socialism. And he is a genuine Democrat. As we all know, he is fiercely partisan. Like all partisan politicians, he helps ensure, in the traditional American way, that the pork barrel isn't monopolized by the same band of crooks. Indeed, comparison reveals that genuine Democrat and loyal American Harry Truman is far to the right of John Foster Dulles. So the idea that Dulles was any sort of Republican, is simply too unreal to be entertained in serious conversation. There are several reasons for his spurious reputation. First is the one so perfectly described by the late, great Isabel Paterson in her review of War, Peace and Change; One may easily misapprehend the message of Mr. Dulles; unfortunately, his style of writing is such that the human eye rebounds from it like a tennis ball.2 Honest Americans, in other words, can easily be misled by the Master Obfuscationist. Then there is the fact that such public relations outfits as The New York Times, for whatever sage reason, are apparently unwilling to spare a man for duty two blocks away at the New York Public Library. What he would find, as we have seen, would be highly difficult to print to fit. And finally there is the fact that Dulles and the boys worked diligently to protect this reputation; to give the impression that he was the man whom conservatives—and all Americans opposed to Marxian Socialism—should support. You will remember, for instance, that in order to protect the Dulles reputation, his good friend, Marxist agent Bromley 334

Oxnam, had to resign as an officer of the Communist-controlled Methodist Federation for Social Action. And there is the famous "brink of war" article, in which James Shepley tells the story of our "close brushes with war in the past three years," and says it is "revealed here for the first time with new information provided by the secretary and by the State Department." 3 The article was published in January 1956, an election year, and as you may remember caused a terrible tizzy among Dulles's "enemies," the poor "liberals," who naturally believed that the nonsense about Dulles going to "the brink of war" to "fight Communism" was true. So what was he? What was John Foster Dulles really? Several theories have been advanced to explain the incredible record collected here. There is, for instance, the Stupidity Theory. The Stupidity Theory would explain it nicely, of course—if it were true. But unfortunately, it isn't. As we have seen for ourselves, and as people on all sides of the problem agree, Dulles was one of the smartest lawyers in the business. It would be pointless, and in fact insulting, to try to dismiss the record as simple stupidity. There is the much more sophisticated Gullibility Theory —also known as Elsenhower's Law of Universal Ignorance. But this theory too is felled by the facts. There are people, of course, who believe that the entire mess is a "red herring"; that everything that happens happens by accident; and apparently that schemes, ideas, policies and tactics are causeless phenomena that float in the air, rather than things which are thought inside somebody's head. But John Foster Dulles wasn't one of them. You will remember that one of the books he was never without was Joseph Stalin's Problems of Leninism—which Eisenhower says he summarized with masterful understanding. Indeed, during his first week in office, Dulles explained on television we have to pay close attention to what is going on in the rest of the world. And the reason for that is that we have enemies who are plotting our destruction. These enemies are the Russian Communists and their allies in other countries. Now you may ask, how do we know that they are really trying to destroy us? Well, the answer to that one is that their leaders teach it openly and have been teaching it for many years, and everything that they do fits into that teaching." 4 In fact, on November 21, 1950, a few days after the Socialist Chinese invaded Korea, which naturally made neces335

sary some tough "anti-Communism," Dulles spoke as follows at the United Nations:

AH of us have a natural reluctance to look unpleasant facts in the face. It is more agreeable, at least for the moment, to ignore the possibility of a master plan of world-wide import, each move of which affects us all. We know vaguely that such a plan has been published, that it has been adhered to steadfastly, and that already one-third of the human race has been subjected to it. But, still, we like to cling to the hope that what happens in some other part of the world is due only to local causes and is of isolated significance. . . .5 So Dulles wasn't ignorant at all, was he. He had a highly sophisticated understanding of the International Marxist Conspiracy. Then there is the Pathology Theory. Finer writes of Dulles's . . . deviousness or duplicity. The only divergence on the evidence about this is whether it proceeded from malice aforethought or an innocent defect or mere overfertility of ideas; the consensus is there. The fact is simply that Dulles did not mean what he said, that therefore he did not live up to his promises, that he whittled away his commitments, that he seemed to deceive.6

". . . My difficulty in working with Mr. Dulles," says Eden, "was to determine what he really meant and in consequence the significance to be attached to his words and actions. . . ." 7 And Goold-Adams, an admirer, writes as follows:
. . . He was essentially a manipulator of other people, a master mind pulling here, persuading there, possibly threatening somewhere else. The words he would use in these manoeuvres were all subordinated to the central purpose, and if they rang a little false or seemed inconsistent when mutually compared, that was a pity, but it did not matter. In actual fact they never were quite untrue or inaccurate if taken literally and examined under a microscope, although the general innuendo which nine people out of ten read into them might sometimes appear to suggest that they were.8

Dulles's words, in other words, weren't completely false, if you happened to own a microscope—they just seemed that way—which didn't matter to Dulles. 336

The explanation may lie in Harsch's remark that "curiously enough, there seems to be a lurking lack of self-confidence, or perhaps non-fulfillment, somewhere in his makeup. . . ."9 Or in Goold-Adams's observation that [Dulles] possessed to an almost superhuman degree the ability to switch his mind off and on at will. He would accordingly treat one problem as one case and another as a completely different one, and the fact that in the world of diplomacy other people might see a close connection between the two could mean almost nothing to Dulles himself, with the result that he sometimes appeared bafflingly inconsistent without necessarily either intending to be so or being aware that he was. . . .10 An inability to handle abstractions is of course one of the symptoms of a deranged mind. And Dulles himself tells us:
. . . We like to think of ourselves as rational beings. We like to feel that reasoning and logical argument are the most persuasive means of inducing human action. Actually this is far from being the case. In only a small segment of our lives are our acts dictated by reason. In the main we act unthinkingly, under the impulse of emotional and physical desires or in accordance with tradition or the custom of the social group of which we happen to form a part.11 Which certainly would explain, would it not, why a man would have difficulty in making himself clear. So Dulles may indeed have been somewhat pathological. Indeed, writes Finer of the doings in 1956 at the first London Conference, As he began to shuffle out of the room in conversation with other delegates, his secretaries and his Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs rushed to his seat at the table to pick up the papers on which he had been doodling, his inveterate habit while he measured his colleagues' arguments. They were terrified lest any of these be collected by journalists and shown to a psychiatrist. . . .12

But to explain away everything Dulles did simply by reassuring reference to the Pathology Theory, to say that Dulles was simply a sick little boy, would be a serious mistake. It would be to assume somehow that a mental disorder disqualifies a man from promoting Marxism. It would be to accept the Socialist lie that the people promoting Marxism are not 337

pathological, but sane and wholesome human beings. Observe however that Marx himself, the founder of Marxism, was almost too pathological to keep himself alive. So is Fidel Castro. Stalin, Khrushchev and Mao Tse-tung, all mass murderers, are certainly not paragons of psychological health. Indeed, Adolf Hitler, another Socialist, was obviously deranged in one way or another, but nobody explains away his murders because of his pathology. So the theory that John Foster Dulles was pathological, may be true—probably is true—but it is redundant and therefore irrelevant. A man who wants to impose a totalitarian dictatorship is by definition somewhat pathological. And this brings us, unfortunately, regretfully and reluctantly—but unavoidably—to the only theory that makes any sense: to the Conspiracy Theory. The only conclusion one can reasonably draw about a man who spends forty years deviously doing everything he can to turn America and the world into a totalitarian Marxist dictatorship, is that he is indeed a member of the International Marxist Conspiracy. As we have seen, in fact, Dulles was not only a member, but a leader. He planned much of it, organized much of it, financed much of it and protected all of it. Furthermore, the facts available so far, and assembled here, are so authoritative, that while they do not direct us to the unimportant conclusion that Dulles was a Communist—a member, that is, of the Communist "Party," and a holder of the unimportant membership card—they definitely do make clear that whether he was a Communist is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Indeed, it should be asked—again and again—at every forthcoming Republican convention. The point is that Dulles deliberately did more damage to America while masquerading as a "conservative Republican anti-Communist," than Gus Hall could have imagined doing. The question arises: Are we justified in saying all this without legal advice? How would an attorney evaluate these facts? You're right. We should get some legal advice. In fact, we got some. We got our advice from John Foster Dulles. At a press conference in Washington on August 28, 1956, John Foster Dulles said in another connection:

Well, I don't like to make charges about the motives of other people. But there is a legal doctrine which says that 'a man 338

is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts.' I think that perhaps this is a situation where the legal dictum is applicable.13 So is this. The natural consequences of Dulles's acts—all the way from his doings in the Federal Council of Churches to his deliberate "ignorance" about Cuba—were purely and strictly the advancement and victory of the International Marxist Conspiracy. And we should take his expensive advice and presume he intended these consequences. Indeed, he even advises us what judgment to make: "The consequences of Communist conquest are now so demonstrably evil," he said in Tokyo in 1951, "that to abet the conquest is a supreme crime. . . ." 14 It is a supreme crime of which John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, stands convicted.

1. The Vital Letters of Russell, Khrushchev, Dulles (London, Macgibbon & Kee, 1958), p. 32. 2. New York Herald Tribune, January 7, 1939. 3. James Shepley, "How Dulles Averted War," Life, Vol. 40, No. 3, January 16, 1956, p. 70. 4. John Robinson Deal, John Foster Dulles (New York, Harper & Bros., 1957), pp. 11-12. 5. Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 23, No. 596, December 4, 1950, p. 910. 6. Herman Finer, Dulles Over Suez: The Theory and Practice of His Diplomacy (Chicago, Quadrangle Books, 1964), p. 80. 7. Anthony Eden, Full Circle (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1960), p. 71. 8. Richard Goold-Adams, The Time Of Power: A Reappraisal of John Foster Dulles (London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1962), pp. 15-16. 9. Joseph C. Harsch, "John Foster Dulles: a very complicated man," Harper's Magazine, Vol. 213, No. 1276, September, 1956, p. 33. 10. Goold-Adams, op. cit., p. 16. 11. John Foster Dulles, War, Peace and Change (New York, Harper & Brothers, 1939), pp. 55-56. 12. Finer, op. cit., p. 156. 13. US News & World Report, Vol. 41, No. 10, September 7, 1956, p. 110. 14. Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 24, No. 618, May 7, 1951, p. 728. 339

Bibliographical Note

The reader has noticed that I have made no use of the Dulles Papers, now housed at Princeton University. Permission to examine these personal documents is granted only by a committee appointed by Dulles for the purpose, and only after the candidate signs an agreement not to "publish, quote, cite, or refer" to any of them without the written permission of the committee, to whom all such quotations, citations or references must be submitted "in the context of their intended publication." To my surprise, I was admitted to the papers, and they are very interesting documents, indeed. In fact, they make even clearer the story told in this book—including such matters as whom Dulles knew and what he financed—and reinforce its conclusion. Unfortunately, however, a subsequent event made it apparent that I could not publish, quote, cite or refer to them. It seems that as I was leaving the premises after finishing my inspection, which took some time, I was reminded again by Mr. Alexander P. Clark, Curator of Manuscripts, that it was imperative to submit all quotations "in the context of their intended publication," and warned not to get impatient for the written approval. Indeed, Mr. Clark cited the case of a man who had submitted a manuscript eight months before, and now, getting on to a year later, he was still waiting for permission to publish—with no assurance that it would be forthcoming. It should not be supposed that Mr. Clark has anything to do with this. He describes himself uncomfortably, and properly, as "the man in the middle." In fact, Mr. Clark and his entire staff are cordial, competent and very helpful, as the reader will see if he applies to get in, which I recommend. "Who are the members of this committee?" I asked him. "I'm just curious." "Actually, the members prefer that you communicate through me," he said. "They are all very busy, and don't want to be bothered." I assured Mr. Clark that I had no doubt they were very busy, and that I was perfectly happy to communicate through him, if that was the rule, but that I simply wanted to know their names. "Is it some sort of secret?" I asked. "Not at all," said Mr. Clark. "They simply prefer that you don't know who they are."

Acheson, Dean, 172, 180, 184, 186, Bentley, Elizabeth, 150, 328 201, 202, 208, 210, 238, 247, 267 Bereczky, Bishop, 250 Adams, Sherman, 226, 239, 297 Bernau, Phyllis D , 299 Adenauer, Konrad, 279 Bill of Rights, 36, 224, 225, 230, 233, Amerasia, 41, 129, 151, 152, 156, 157 235, 236 American Academy of Political Sci- Bisson, T A, 129, 150-152, 163

ence, 136

American Bar Association, 27, 107, 224, 225, 235, 264

134 American Interests in the War and the Peace, 35 American League for Peace and Democracy, 122 American Peace Commission, 30 American Peace Mobilization, 150 American Round Table on India, 54 American Russian Institute, 54, 163 American Youth Congress, 54 Amsterdam Conference, 65 Amtorg Corporation, 134 Andrews, F Emerson, 121 Arbenz Guzman, Jacobo, 312 Aswan Dam, 286, 287, 298 Atkinson, Henry A , 54, 58, 61, 62, 101, 102 Atlantic Federal Union, 267 Atlantic Union Committee, 267 Atomic Energy Commission, 137 Austrian Peace Treaty, 275

American Committee to Save Refugees, 54 American Council of Learned Societies, The, 124, 125 American Dilemma, An, 141 American Federation of Labor, 49,

Bogolepov, Igor, 115, 116 Bohlen, Charles E , 240, 317, 318 Braden, Spruille, 312, 320 Braun, Madeleine, 128 Brazeal, Brailsford R, 134 Bretton Woods, 179 Backer Amendment, 225-227, 230 Backer, John W, 224-227 Bridges, Styles, 243, 282 Brookwood Labor College, 134 Browder, Earl, 48, 56, 111 Brownell, Herbert, 244 Bryan, William Jennings, 4, 15 Budenz, Louis, 40, 116, 118, 136, 150 Bukar, Jan, 194 Bunche, Ralph J , 141 Butler, Nicholas Murray, 161, 163 Byrnes, James, 180

California Committee on Un-American Activities, 55, 84 Capital, 81 Capitalism, 23, 50, 78, 80, 82, 92, 106, 249 Carnegie Corporation, 142, 162 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 116, 120, 126, 160-165, 167, 171, 172, 177, 186, 199, 226, Carpenter, J. Henry, 108 Carter, Edward C , 134, 151, 152, 155 Casey, Kathryn, 120, 127, 137 Castro, Fidel, 31, 313-322, 329, 331, 338 Castro, Ratil, 314, 315 Central Intelligence Agency, 34, 321 Chabada, Jan, 247, 249 Chagla, M. C., 31 Chambers, Whittaker, 167, 170, 171 Chamoun, Camille, 304, 305-308
Chao, T C, 64, 65, 106, 129 234

Baghdad Pact, 284
Baldwin, Roger, 328 Barnard, Chester I, 120 Barnes, Joseph Fels, 186 Barron, Bryton, 242, 245, 282 Baruch, Bernard, 6, 7 Basic Aims of United States Foreign Policy, 39 Batista, Fulgencio, 316-322 Bedacht, Max, 56 Behind Soviet Power, 88, 105 Belfrage, Cedric, 83

Chappell, Winifred, 50, 85 Chase, Stuart, 142 Chehab, Fuad, 304, 305, 307, 308 Ben Bella, Ahmed, 285 Chiang, Kai-shek, 42, 148, 267-271, Benedict, Ruth, 62, 163 Bennett, John C , 61, 62, 65, 66, 80319 China Aid Council, 122 82, 91, 100, 102, 106, 123, 183, China Aid News, 125 246 Christian Century, 66, 109, 110, 250 Bentley, Alvin, 248




Christian Values and Economic Life, Dru, Philip, 11-17, 328 123 Duggan, Laurence, 34, 124, 126, 128 Churchill, Sir Winston, 189, 238, 267, Duggan, Stephen P., 126 272 Dulles, Allen Macy, 98 Clark, Evans, 163 Dulles, Allen Welsh, 19, 30, 34, 37, Clark, Mark W., 200, 205, 206, 210, 39, 41, 42, 124, 126-128, 179, 180, 216, 217, 220, 221 231, 321 Clark, Tom, 54, 85, 163 Dumbarton Oaks, 179 Clay, Lucius D., 187 Dunn, Frederick S., 37-39, 124 Colegrove, Kenneth, 119, 157, 163 Communism, 90, 91, 99, 100, 107-109, Eden, Anthony, 253, 254, 262, 284, 112, 129, 149 287, 288, 290-294, 296, 288, 336 Communist, The, 148 Eisenhower Administration, 232 Communist International, 23, 55, 121, Eisenhower Doctrine, 302, 305, 308, 203, 260 309 Communist Party, 40, 47-55, 83, 85, Eisenhower, Dwight D., 83, 84, 109, 89, 90, 106, 110, 111, 115, 116, 172, 173, 186-189, 191, 205, 206, 121, 125, 127, 128, 135, 137, 141, 209, 217, 218, 225, 233, 234, 239148, 150, 151, 194, 245, 304, 326, 241, 244, 248, 249, 252-256, 267, 327, 328 269, 270, 272, 279, 287, 290, 294, Communist Manifesto, 13, 15-18, 81, 296, 297, 299, 306, 311, 312, 321, 325, 327, 329 322, 335 Congregational Social Service Com- Eisenhower, Milton, 312 mission in Boston, 54 Eisler, Hans, 121, 122 Congress of American Women, 128 Emeny, Brooks, 155 Congressional Record, 282 Encyclopedia of Social Science, 122 Conspiracy, 13, 14, 176, 325, 327, 329- Epworth Herald, 50 331, 334 Constitution, U . S . , 10, 33, 36, 141, Faisal, King, 305 191, 197, 224-226, 230, 232, 233, Fascism, 56, 80, 99, 100, 138, 139, 235 328, 329 Corvalan, Luis, 26 FBI, 35, 67, 151, 152, 169, 170 Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Federal Council of Churches (FCC), 31-36, 39, 41, 43, 62, 94, 99, 110, 53-62, 77, 82, 86, 88, 99-101, 103123, 124, 126-129, 134, 135, 154, 106, 123, 167, 182, 190, 235, 340 160, 162, 165, 171, 177, 189, 197, Commission of the Churches on In240, 243, 252, 262 ternational Affairs, 104, 162, 234 Committee on Research, 34 Commission on a Just and Durable War and Peace Studies, 32, 126 Peace, 62, 63, 83, 102, 108, 181, Cox Committee, 120-122 197, 235 Cox, Eugene E., 117-119, 122 Commission on International JusCrusade In Europe, 186 tice and Good Will, 54, 58, 101, Currie, Lauchlin, 33, 150, 185 106 Cushman, Robert E., 136, 137 Commission on the Church and So-

Dragoicheva, Tsola N., 128

Daily Worker, 40, 116, 122, 129, 136, 179 Daniels, Josephus, 6 Davidow, Larry S., 165, 167, 169 Davidson, Thomas, 330 Davis, Jerome, 51, 88, 89, 105, 222 Davis, John W., 164, 165 Dean, Arthur H., 154-156, 170, 182, 190, 207, 216, 266 Dean, Vera Micheles, 62, 83, 88, 128, 129, 162 del Pino, Rafael, 313 Dewey, Thomas E., Ill, 176, 182, 186 Dictatorship, 9, 13, 23, 26, 181, 198, 224, 232, 233, 266, 322, 330, 333 Diem, Ngo dinh, 257, 262 Dien Bien Phu, 253, 255, 256, 262, 290 Dixon, Sir Pierson, 296 Dollard, Charles, 142 Dozer, Donald, 242

cial Service, 54, 56, 57, 61 Commission on The Church Universal and the World of Nations, 61 Congregational Christian Churches' Commission on Social Action, 61 Department of the Church and Economic Life, 58 Federal Reserve System, 16 Federal Trade Commission, 16 Federal Union, Inc., 260, 261 Feighan, Michael A., 276, 277 Field, Frederick Vanderbilt, 33, 129, 134, 150, 151, 153-156, 167, 182, 183, 190, 191, 207, 266, 329 Flanders, Ralph E., 134 Flynn, Elizabeth Gurley, 56 Foreign Policy Association, 62, 89,
163, 165, 177, 179, 231, 235 Formosa, 201, 267, 268, 270, 271 Formosa Resolution, 269 Fosdick, Raymond B., 134, 142
126, 128, 129, 149, 150, 155, 162,

Fouad, Ahmed, 285, 286
Fourteen Points, 19, 29


Foster, William Z , 25, 52, 55

France-Presse, 206 Franco, Francisco, 279 Free, Arthur M , 58 Fritchman, Stephen H , 85 Fuentes, Ydigoras, 314

Indochina War, 254, 255 Inquiry, 19, 32, 33 Institute of International Affairs, 31 Institute of Pacific Relations, 148,
150-157, 160, 162-165, 167, 170, 173, 186, 191, 207, 241 Intelligence Digest, 315 Intercollegiate Socialist Society, 19, 34, 183, 325 International Marxist Conspiracy, 170, 328, 330, 331, 336, 338, 339 International Missionary Council, 55, 64, 104 International Relations Clubs, 163 International Round Table of Christian Leaders, 63, 103

Gardner, Arthur, 314, 315, 317
Garland Fund, 116 Gaza Strip, 295, 297 Gellhorn, Walter, 136, 137

General Education Board, 117, 120, 173 Geneva Conference, 255, 263 George, Lloyd, 29 Gitlow, Benjamin, 48-53, 55 Goal is Government of All the World, The, 262 Gompers, Samuel, 48 Gourvitch, Alexander, 134 Graves, Mortimer, 125, 126, 150 Grey, Sir Edward, 20 Group on Armament Questions, 37 Guevara, Ernesto, "Che," 27, 312, 314, 315 Guggenheim Foundation, 116 Haldane, J B S , 121 Hale William Bayard, 10 Hall, Gus, 338 Hall, Martin, 51 Hammarskjold, Dag, 31, 277 Harding, J Horace, 16 Harding, Warren G , 177

Jaffe, Philip J, 41, 129, 150, 151 Jenner, William E, 240, 241 Jessup, Philip C, 34, 124, 128, 154, 160, 183, 186

Jerome, V J , 121

Johnson, Alvin, 122

Johnson, Hewlett, 83 Johnson, Joseph E, 172, 174, 183 Johnson, Lyndon, 135, 264 Johnson, Manning, 49, 111, 116 Joy, C Turner, 200 Judd, Walter, 170-172

Kadar Government, 277, 280 Karami, Rashid, 303, 305, 307, 308, 309, 316 Keele, Harold M, 122, 123, 164 Kennan, George F , 238 Kennedy, Bobby, 330 Hays, Wayne, 119 Kenworthy, F W , 263 Headline Series, 89, 126, 127, 163, 180 Khrushchev, Nikita, 26, 195, 276, 296, Herring, Pendleton, 138-141 302, 303 Herter, Christian A , 19, 30 Kim Il Sung, 195 Highlander Folk School, 134 King, Martin Luther, Jr, 37, 141 Hill Robert C , 317 Kohlberg, Alfred, 148, 149, 152-155, Hiss, Alger, 33, 106, 154, 164, 165, 157, 165, 167, 169, 170 169-173, 183-186, 191, 199, 238, Korea, 36, 173, 195, 196, 198, 199, 242, 245, 309, 329, 334 202, 204-207, 210, 246, 252, 256, Hitler, Adolf, 28-30, 64, 86, 99, 109, 263, 271, 335 140, 178, 210, 275, 285, 295, 330, Korea, North, 195, 200, 203, 206, 208, 338 209, 216-218 Korea, South, 195, 201, 202, 206-209, Hitler-Stalin Pact, 125 Holland, William L, 155, 162, 173 216-218, 221, 255 Korean War, 42, 65, 189, 194, 199, Holloway, James L, Jr., 306 209, 211, 214, 221, 224 Hoover, J Edgar, 66 Kornfeder, Joseph Zack, 47-49 Hope, Lord John, 291 Korowicz, Marek, 279 House Committee on Un-American Activities, 83, 85, 90, 122, 128, Kotula, Karl, 247, 249 Kyes, Roger M, 221 135, 136 House, Edward Mandell, 2-7, 10, 11, Laidler, Harry W, 80 14-20, 23, 30, 31, 35, 79, 98, 118, Laissez Faire, A Positive Program 176, 177, 240, 325, 328-330, 334 for, 41 Hromadka, Josef L., 65, 100, 106, Lamont, Thomas W , 33 190, 246, 249 Lane, Clayton, 156 Hsu, Y Y , 153 Lane, Franklin K , 7, 15 Hull, Cordell, 32, 176 Lange, Oskar, 31, 40, 124 Hussein, King, 285 Langer, William L , 33, 124, 134 Hutchison, John A , 61 Lattimore, Owen, 129, 150-152, 156, 163 Indochina, 252-257, 262



League for Industrial Democracy, 81, Federation for Social Service, 4850, 54 134 League of American Writers, 54 Laymen's League, 53 League of Nations, 18, 30, 177 Mezes, Sidney, 19 Mikoyan, Anastas I., 31, 275, 280-282, Lee, Dwight E., 32 316 Lehman, Herbert, 182, 183 Mindszenty, Cardinal, 278 Le Monde, 206 Lenin, V. I., 23, 24, 26, 31, 47, 80, 81, Minh, Ho chi, 258, 259, 262 171, 178, 240, 325-327, 329 Minh Tan Press, 258 Lie, Trygve, 199 Mitchell, Kate Louise, 151 Lin, Piao, 201 National Revolutionary Movement (MNR), 311 Lippmann, Walter, 19, 34, 81, 124, Mohieddin, Khaled, 285, 286 183 Littell, Franklin H., 52, 53, 55 Molotov, V. I., 178, 180, 196 Living Church, 47 Monahan, A. E., 61, 62 Lloyd, Selwyn, 291 Moore, Harriet Lucy, 150 Lodge, Henry Cabot, 278, 297 Morrison, Charles Clayton, 66 London Conference, 199, 288, 289, Morse, Wayne L., 134 Moscow Institute, 128 337 Mosely, Philip E., 32, 126, 135 MacArthur, Douglas, 59, 173, 199- Mundt-Nixon Bill, 136 203, 205, 209, 210 Murphy, Robert D., 197, 205, 214, McCarran Committee, 151, 154, 186, 215, 217, 218, 282, 287-289, 292, 294, 299, 306-308, 316 207 McCarran-Walter Act, 246 Myrdal, Gunnar, 141 McClintock, Robert, 304 Mussolini, Benito, 81, 99 McCormick, Vance, 19 McIntire, Carl, 66 Naguib, Mohammed, 284 Mackay, John A., 55, 56, 61, 64, 65, Nasser, Gamal, 284-295, 298, 299, 302, 303, 305, 307 83, 100, 101, 104, 106, 108, 162, 183, 234, 246, 248, 250 National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, 51, 84, 109, 110, 125, McLeod, Scott, 244, 245 128, 163, 186 McMichael, Jack R., 50, 51, 55, 89 National Council of Churches, 58, Macmillan, Harold, 296 100, 248 Maleter, Pal, 275 National Lawyers Guild, 136 Malik, Charles, 227, 228 National Review, 314, 315 Malik, Jacob, 204 Malkin, Maurice, 115, 150 Nearing, Scott, 90 Neutral Nations Repatriation ComMandate for Change, 253, 255 mission, 215, 216, 218, 219 Mao, Tse-tung, 42, 51, 65, 106, 119, New 173, 174, 183, 185, 201, 207, 266, Deal, A, 142 New Freedom, The, 10 268, 319, 338 New Masses, 129, 148, 153, 155 Marinello, Juan, 56 Marshall, George C., 42, 102, 180, New School for Social Research, 121, 122 200 Newton, Louie, 85 Martens, Ludwig, 115 New York Call, 9 Marx, Karl, 11-13, 15, 16, 18, 47, 81, Nhu, Ngo dinh, 259 149, 325-327, 330, 338 Niebuhr, Reinhold, 56, 61, 62, 64, 66, Marxian Socialism, 17, 23, 24, 27, 34, 77-80, 83, 87, 91, 100, 102, 104, 176, 210, 329, 333, 334 106, 143, 162, 183, 234, 246 Marxian Socialist, 11, 17, 18, 23, 26, Nikezic, Marko, 32 27, 43, 325-327 Nitze, Paul, 240 Marzani, Carl, 51, 89 Nkrumah, Kwame, 31 Matsu Islands, 269-271 Noble, G. Bernard, 241, 243 Matthews, J. B., 80, 247 Noble, John H., 220 Mecklenburg, Presbytery, 59 Melish, William Howard, 109, 110, Nolde, O. Frederick, 162, 172, 234, 235 125, 128 North American Committee to Aid Mendes-France, Pierre, 256 Spanish Democracy, 83 Menon, Krishna, 215 North Atlantic Treaty Organization Menzies, Robert G., 288, 289 (NATO), 187, 261, 274, 302 Merriam, Charles Edward, 142, 143, Norton, Robert, 54 145 Methodist Episcopal Church, 53 Office of Naval Intelligence, 60 Federation for Social Action, 52, On the Economic Theory of Social53, 55, 56, 58, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, ism, 40 105, 109, 112, 335

Operation Keelhaul, 186, 215, 218, 249 Oppenheimer, J. Robert, 135 Oxford Conference, 65, 100, 101 Oxnam, G. Bromley, 51, 55, 58, 6264, 83-93, 102-106, 108, 110, 112, 123, 128, 162, 183, 197, 222, 234, 246, 248-250, 335 Page, Walter Hines, 20 Panmunjom, 195 Papp, Laszlo, 249 Paton, William, 63 Patterson, Leonard, 49 Pawley, William D., 313 Paz Estenssoro, Victor, 311 Peace Conference in Paris, 18, 31 Peffer, Nathaniel, 163 Peter, Janos, 247, 250 Peurifoy, John E., 312 Philbrick, Herbert A., 56, 67 Philip Dm: Administrator: A Story of Tomorrow, 10, 14, 17, 118, 176 Political Affairs, 52, 55 Post War World, 104, 127, 128 Princeton Theological Seminary, 55, 65 Problems of Leninism, 233, 234, 244, 335 Progressive Party, 34, 109, 110, 150 Protestant Digest, 55, 83


Security, Loyalty and Science, 137 Serov, Ivan, 276 Sharp, Walter R., 32 Shaw, George Bernard, 330 Shotwell, James T., 19, 32, 133, 160 171 Sinclair, Upton, 83 Small, Albion, 328 Smedley, Agnes, 51 Smith Act, 136 Smith, Alfred K, 181 Smith, Earl E. T., 315-321 Smoot, Dan, 34 Socialism, 23, 24, 26, 40, 80-82, 87, 103, 105, 129, 171, 180, 184, 260, 329, 330 Socialist, 21, 179, 187, 198 Socialist Party, 10, 13, 134 Social Questions Bulletin, 51, 52, 58, 84, 88-90, 105, 109, 110 Social Science Research Council, 133, 135, 136, 138, 141, 142, 144, 145, 151, 167, 183 Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), 262, 263

Sherer, Congressman, 83, 84

Welfare, 136 Soviet Russia Today, 84, 125, 128 Spelman Fund, 122, 133, 145 Spofford, William B., 52 Staley, Eugene, 40, 41, 124, 128, 129 Stalin, Joseph, 24-26, 40-42, 48, 49, 56, 99, 102, 103, 105, 106, 111, Quemoy Islands, 269-271 149, 163, 165, 171, 173, 182, 186, 190, 198, 230, 233, 234, 238-240, Radford, Arthur W., 298 242, 244, 247, 281, 335, 338 Reece, B. Carroll, 118, 119 Standley, William H., 60 Reece Committee, 118-120, 126, 137, Starobin, Joseph, 179 138, 151, 157 State, Department of, 19, 32, 35, 36, Reformed Theological Academy, 250 51, 62, 124, 129, 149, 151, 156, Religion in Life, 98 160, 164, 172-174, 188-190, 197, Rhee, Syngman, 216-218 200, 202, 224, 242-248, 257, 258, Rigney, Janet, 34 270, 271, 276, 277, 279, 282, 291, Robert Marshall Fund, 116 295, 299, 307, 314-320, 322, 335 Rockefeller Foundation, 116, 117, Stein, Gunther, 163 119-129, 133, 135-137, 141, 142, Stern, Bernhard J., 141 144, 151, 152, 154, 156, 157, 160, Sterner, Richard, 141 162, 167, 173, 177, 183, 191, 243 Stevenson, Adlai, 187 Rockefeller, John D., Jr., 59 Stewart, Marguerite Ann, 128, 149, Rockefeller, Nelson, 169 153 Roosevelt, Eleanor, 187 Stewart, Maxwell, 128, 136, 149, 150, Roosevelt, Elliot, 196 153 Roosevelt, Franklin D., 62, 102, 1 1 Stewart, Walter W., 133, 134 1, 142, 180, 181, 183, 185, 238-240 Stone, William T., 129, 150, 151 Roper, Elmo, 262 Stratemeyer, George E., 200 Rosinger, Lawrence K., 62, 127, 128, Streit, Clarence K., 260, 261 152, 156, 162 Strong, Anna Louisa, 150, 163 Rusk, Dean, 119, 121-126, 128, 129,Strong, Ed, 66, 106 137, 152-154, 156, 173, 174, 183, Struik, Dirk J., 51, 84, 163 185, 201-203, 245, 262, 263 Suez Canal, 284, 287-290, 292, 294Russell, Bertrand, 77 296, 298, 299, 302, 303 Russell Sage Foundation, 121, 133 Suez Canal Company, 289 Suez Canal Users' Association, 289293, 295 San Francisco Conference, 32, 165, Sulzberger, Arthur Hays, 119 169, 178, 180, 197, 235 Suslov, Mikhail, 276 Saposs, David J., 134





Swing, Raymond Gram, 149

Tachen Islands, 269-271 Taft, Robert A., 185, 188, 239 Thai, Vu van, 257, 258


Ward, Harry F., 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 56, 58, 61, 77, 85-90, 105, 109, 110, 112, 167 Ward, Lester, 328 Thomas, Norman, 19, 134 War, Peace and Change, 334 Tito, Marshal, 276 Warren, Earl, 141 Treaty of Constantinople of 1888, 287 Trotsky, Leon, 23, 327 War Trade Board, 19 Truman Administration, 241-243 Webb, Beatrice and Sidney, 326 Truman, Harry S., 169, 173, 180, 182, Webber, Charles C., 50, 52, 85 184, 185, 187, 198, 201, 202, 205, Weltfish, Gene, 62 226, 239, 267, 334 White, Harry Dexter, 185 White, William Alien, 4 Union Now, 260 Wild, Payson S., Jr., 36, 37 Union Theological Seminary, 61, 77, Wilkerson, Doxey A., 141 80 Willitts, Joseph H., 133, 152 United Nations, 32, 39, 89, 104, 106, Wilson, Howard, 163 109, 126, 127, 161, 162, 165, 176- Wilson, Woodrow, 4-7, 9-11, 14-16,
180, 205, 226, 261, 298, 194, 196, 197, 199, 200, 20218-21, 29, 30, 177, 180, 329 207, 209-215, 217-219, 224, Wiseman, Sir William, 19 227, 230, 231, 235, 240, 245, Wittmer, Felix, 163 263, 266-268, 280, 288, 292- World Conference on Life and Work, 336 61 248-250

Charter, 203

Command, 214, 219

Covenant on Human Rights, 224,
227, 228-234

World Council of Churches, 61, 6466, 106, 110, 111, 162, 190, 246,

UNESCO, 37, 38 Food Conference, 32 General Assembly, 202, 209, 215,
267, 268, 297

Genocide Convention, 232, 233, 277 Human Rights Commission, 126,
224, 227, 234-236

World Court, 39, 60, 109 World Economy in Transition, 124, 128, 129 World War I, 18-20, 29, 32, 33, 177 World War II, 32, 33, 65, 111, 124,

Security Council, 194, 196, 198, 203,
263, 268, 269, 293, 295, 296, 298

Wormser, Rene A., 118, 119, 151, 160
Yalta Conference, 238-240, 243-246, Yalta Papers, 241-245 Yaroslawsky, Emil, 49 Yergan, Max, 56 Young Communist League, 50 Young, Donald R., 141, 142

125, 134, 164, 177, 186, 198, 209, 214, 243, 260, 278

Van Fleet, James A., 203, 204 Van Kleeck, Mary, 133, 134 Veto, Bishop, 250 Vietnam, 189, 252, 254, 255, 257, 260, 262, 263 Vishinsky, Andrei, 209

Wagner, Robert F., Sr., 182 Wallace, Henry A., 34, 109, 110, 134, 150 Zinchenko, Konstantin E., 199, 203