Mr. Winchell also mentioned Senator Knowland‘s documentary evidence that those who made State Department policy had been instructed by Secretary Acheson to minimize the strategic importance of Formosa.
All of this was thrown into sharp focus by President Truman when he revealed in a press conference (May 17, 1951) that his first decision to fire General MacArthur a year previously had been strengthened when the Commander in Japan protested in the summer of 1950 that the proposed abandonment of Formosa would weaken the U.S. position in Japan and the Philippines!
No matter how hard one tries, The Freeman summarized on June 4, 1951, there is no way of evading the awful truth: The American State Department wanted Marxist Communists to win for Marxism and Communism in China. Also, The Freeman continued, On his own testimony, General Marshall supported our pro-Marxist China policy with his eyes unblinkered with innocence.
Thus, in the first half of 1950, our Far Eastern policy, made by Acheson and approved by Truman and Dewey, was based on (1) the abandonment of Formosa to the expected conquest by Chinese Communists, (2) giving no battle weapons to the Nationalist Chinese or to the South Koreans, in spite of the fact that the Soviet was known to be equipping the North Koreans with battle weapons and with military skills, (3) the mere belief at least, so stated of our Secretary of State, self-confessidly ignorant of the matter, that the Communists of China would become angry with the Soviet. The sequel is outlined in section (d) below.
Our second great mistake in foreign policy, unless votes in New York and other Northern cities are its motivation, was our attitude toward the problem of Palestine. In the Eastern Mediterranean on the deck of the heavy cruiser, U.S.S. Quincy, which was to bring him home from Yalta, President Roosevelt in February, 1945, received King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia.
According to General Elliott Roosevelt (As He Saw It, p. 245): It had been Father‘s hope that he would be able to convince Ibn Saud of the equity of the settlement in Palestine of the tens of Thousands of Jews driven from their European homes. But, as the ailing President later told Bernard Baruch, of all the men he had talked to in his life, he had got least satisfaction from this iron-willed Arab monarch.
General Roosevelt concludes thus: Father ended by promising Ibn Saud that he would sanction no American move hostile to the Arab people. This may be considered the four-term President‘s legacy on the subject, for in less than two months death had completed its slow assault upon his frame and his faculties.
But the Palestine Problem, like the ghost in an Elizabethan drama, would not stay down. In the post-war years (1945 and after), Jewish immigrants mostly from the Soviet Union or satellite states poured into the land once known as Holy. These immigrants were largely Marxist in outlook and principally of Khazar antecedents. As the immigration progressed, the situation between Moslems and this new type of Jew became tense.
The vote-conscious American politicians became interested. After many vacillations between non- partition which was recommended by many American Jewish organizations and highly placed individual Jews, the United States which has many Zionist voters and few Arab voters decided to sponsor the splitting of Palistine, which was predominantly Arab in population, into Arab and Jewish zones.
In spite of our lavish post-war tossing out of hundreds of millions and sometimes billions to almost any nation except a few pet enemies such as Spain for almost any purpose, the United Nations was inclined to disregard our sponsorship and reject the proposed new member. On Wednesday, November 26, 1947, our proposition received 25 votes out of 57 (13 against, 17 abstentions, 2 absent) and was defeated. Thus the votes had been taken and the issue seemed settled. But , no!
Any reader who wishes fuller details should by all means consult the microfilmed New York Times for November 26-30, and other pertinent periodicals, but here are the highlights: The United Nations General Assembly postponed a vote on the partition of Palestine yesterday after Zionist supporters found that they still lacked an assured two thirds majority (article by Thomas J. Hamilton, New York Times, November 27, 1947).
Yesterday morning Dr. Aranha was notified by Siamese officials in Washington that the credential of the Siamese delegation, which had voted against partition in the Committee, had been canceled (November 27, 1947).
Since Saturday [November 22] the United States Delegation has been making personal contact with other delegates to obtain votes for partition. . . The news from Haiti . . . would seem to indicate that some persuasion has now been brought to bear on home governments . . . the result of today‘s vote appeared to depend on what United States representatives were doing in faraway capitals (from an article by Thomas J. Hamilton, New York Times, November 28, 1947).
The result of our pro-Israeli pressures, denounced in some instances by representatives of the governments who yielded, was a change of vote by nine nation: Belgium, France, Haiti, Liberia, Luxemburg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Paraguay, and the Philippines. Chile dropped to not voting from the pro-Israeli twenty-five votes of November 26, and the net gain for U.S.-Israeli was 8. Greece changed from not voting to against, replacing the dismissed Siamese delegation, and the against vote remained the same, 13, Thus the New York Times on Sunday, November 30, carried the headline:
PALESTINE PARTITION; MARGIN IS 33-13; ARABS WALK OUT. . .
The Zionist Jews of Palestine now had their seacoast and could deal with the Sovietized Black Sea countries without further bother from the expiring British mandate. The selection of immigrants of which over-populated Israel felt such great need was to some extent, if not entirely, supervised by the countries of origin. For instance, a high Israeli official visited Bucharest to coordinate with the Communist dictator of Rumania, Ana Rabinsohn Pauker, the selection of immigrants for Israel.
Soviet Bloc Lets Jews Leave Freely and Take Most Possessions to Israel
The New York Times headlined (November 26, 1948) a UP dispatch from Prague.