South of the Mediterranean‘s necklace of islands, lies Africa, the ultimate key to the success or failure of the Western World in preventing an aggressive move against Europe. It is air power in Egypt, that might well be the major deterrent of any hostile move in Europe or in the Middle East by the Soviet Union. Air power offers the only effective counter-measure against Russian occupation of the Middle East. The deeper the Red Army moves into this priceless strategic area, the more its supply lines can be disrupted by air strikes (Africa and Our Security, by General Bonner Fellers, The Freeman, August 13, 1951). In his valuable article, General Fellers states further that a small, highly trained and mobile ground force, with ade-
quate air protection and support, can defend African air bases, which in turn could prevent the crossing of the Mediterrranean by hostile forces in dangerous numbers.
The Moslem lands of the Middle East and North Africa (as sources of oil and as bases for long range bombers) should, by a proper diplomatic approach, be pulled positively and quickly into the United States defense picture. Barring new inventions not yet in sight, and barring disguised aid from our government (such as Truman and Acheson gave the Chinese Communists in the Strait of Formosa), the Soviet Union cannot win a world war without the oil of the Middle East. Soviet delay in making overt moves in that theater may well have been determined by gasoline reserves insufficient for the venture.
The Soviet squeeze upon Iran was initiated at the Tehran Conference, where Stalin, who is said to be unwilling to leave his territory, entertained our rapidly declining President in the Soviet Embassy in a grandiose gesture insulting alike to the Iranians and to our staff in that country. Stalin‘s alleged reason that his embassy was the only safe spot was in truth an astute face-raising gesture before the peoples of Asia, for he displayed Roosevelt, the symbolic Man of the West, held in virtual protective custody or house arrest by the Man of the East.
Details of the dinner in the Soviet Embassy to which Stalin invited Father and the P.M. are given by General Elliott Roosevelt in As He Saw It (pp. 188,189). Stalin proposed that Germany‘s war criminals be disposed of by firing squads as fast as we capture them, all of them, and there must be at least fifty thousand of them.
According to General Roosevelt, the proposal shocked Prime Minister Churchill, who sprang quickly to his feet.
“Any such attitude,‟ he said, “is wholly contrary to our British sense of justice! The British people will never stand for such mass murder. . . no one, Nazi or no, shall be summarily dealt with before a firing squad, without a proper legal trial. . . !!!”
The impasse was resolved by the U.S. President: Clearly there must be some sort of compromise, he said, according to his son. Perhaps we could say that instead of summarily executing fifty thousand war criminals, we should settle on a smaller number. Shall we could say that instead of summarily executing fifty thousand war criminals, we should settle on a smaller number. Shall we say forty-nine thousand five hundred?
It was in this way, prophetic of the crime of Nuremberg, that President Roosevelt, unquestionably very tired and probably already too ill to know the full import of his words and acts, threw away the last vestiges of our government‘s respect for law, and for the Western Christian tradition. In return, our President got nothing but the flattering of the Leftists around him and the gratification of a whim of his decline which was to make Churchill scowl and Stalin smile! What a spectacle of surrender in the very capital of strategically important and historic Persia!
Over all Stalin‘s triumphs and Churchill‘s defeats at Tehran was the shadow of the derricks of the Iranian oil fields. Should the Abadan refineries be shut down or their out flow in another direction, the results would be felt around the world. These refineries are the largest in the world, processing 550,000 barrels a day (monthly Newsletter of Representative Frances Bolton of Ohio, June, 1951). And what a sorry figure
America has played in this vital oil area from Tehran to 1951! Our Government‘s Deplorable Performance in Iran Has Contributed to a Great Disaster was the sub-title of a Life editorial, How to Lose a World (May 21, 1951), on Acheson‘s policy of doing nothing except let the pieces settle after the expected disaster in the world‘s greatest oil-producing area. In Iran or in an adjacent area, the Soviet may find it necessary to strike for her gasoline and lubricants before any major attempts can be surely successful elsewhere.
The well-known leftism in our State Department, as indicated in many ways, especially by the carefully documented testimony of Harold Stassen; and the C.I.O.‘s expulsion of the United Public Workers Union, and the early predilection of Prime Minister Attlee (1945-1951) for Communism raise the inevitable fear that the oil crisis in Iran, while publicly deplored by Britain and America, may well have been engineered by the very American and British government officials who then shed crocodile tears at the oil‘s probable loss to the West!
A major world fact in the early 1950‘s was the fall of British prestige in the Middle East, and the drawing of the Soviet into the resultant vacuum. The Attlee government‘s protest on Iranian oil nationalization commanded no respect anywhere, for the Iranians were copying the home program of the Socialist government of Britain! Britain‘s humiliation in Iran was made graver by the long threatened but never carried out dispatch of some 4,500 paratroopers to the oil fields, a gesture which was said to have stemmed from the Socialist Defense Minister at that time, the Jewish statesman, Mr. Emanuel Shinwell (UP dispatch from Tehran, May 25, 1951). Whether or not Mr. Churchill‘s government (October, 1951) can save the situation is for the future to show. There was no comfort for non-Communists in his speech before the two houses of the U.S. Congress on January 17, 1952, a speech which called not for peace with justice to the Moslems of the Middle East but for U.S. troops!
The moral power of America as a mediator, like that of Britain, has moved toward zero. Nearly a million destitute Moslem refugees from Palestine, who have in their veins more of the blood of Biblical peoples than any other race in the world today, are straggling here and there in the Middle East or are in displaced persons‘ camps, and are not silent about the presence of American officers (Chapter VI, above) commanding the troops which drove them from their homes. For details on these hopeless refugees sent to wandering and starving by our policy, see Alfred M. Lillienthal‘s Storm Clouds Over the Middle East, Human Events, August 2, 1950.
The evil we did in Palestine may be our nemesis in Iran and in Egypt! The truth is that because of America‘s sponsoring of bloody little Israel and Britain‘s falling in line, the Moslem Middle East resents the presence of the previously respected and admired Anglo-Saxon powers (Mr. Churchill‘s speech).
Moreover, the Zionists are not quiescent. The summer of 1951 saw clashes on the Israeli frontiers and the exposure of Zionist schemes in other parts of the Middle East. Here is a sample:
Baghdad, Iraq, June 18 (Ap)—Police said today they had discovered large quantities of weapons and explosives in Izra Daoud Synagogue. Military sources estimated it was enough to dynamite all Baghdad. This was the latest descovery reported by police, who said yesterday they found a large store of machine guns, bombs, and ammunition in the former home of a prominent Jew. After details of other discoveries the dispatch concludes:
“Police said the ammunition was stored by the Baghdad Zionist Society, which was described as a branch of the World Zionist Organization” (New York Times, June 19, 1951).
In spite of our deserved low reputation in the Moslem world, American counter-moves of some sort to save Middle East oil and the Suez Canal are imperative. The proper approach is obvious, but will our government make it? The Moslems, and those allied with them religiously and sympathetically, compose almost one-half of the worlds people who control almost one-half of the world‘s land area. We infuriated them when we helped to drive a million Arabs from their native lands in the Middle East (Newsletter of Congressman Ed Gossett of Texas, February 1, 1951). The recapture of the friendship of 400,000,000 Moslems by the United States, and its retention, may prove the deciding factor in preserving world peace (statement of Congressman Ed Gossett of Texas in the House of Representatives, June 12, 1951, as recorded in the Congressional Record). In the Washington Times-Herald (Sept. 28, 1951), Senator Malone of Nevada also called attention to the sound sense and strategic advantage of having the Moslem world on our side.he recapture of friendship with the Moslem is not only a question of acts of justice on our part but is tied to the question of absolutely vital oil reserves. The oil of the Middle East is essential to our preventing World War III or to our winning it. In World War II we had gasoline rationing with the oil of the Middle East on our side. What would we do in another war, far more dependent on gasoline, with the Middle East oil on the other side? And what would we do if the West should lose the Suez Canal?
The first move to prevent such a disaster, after cleaning out our State Department as the American Legion demanded by a vote of 2,881 to 131 at its National Convention in Miami (October, 1951), should be to send a completely new slate of American diplomats to the Moslem nations from Egypt and Yemen to Iraq and Iran. These new diplomats should be unsullied, square shooting Americans and should have instructions to announce a changed policy which is long overdue. The present State Department, stained with past errors, could not succeed even if it should wish to succeed.
A changed policy implemented by new officials would almost certainly be received by the Moslem world with cordiality and gratitude, for until the Israel grab was furthered in this country America was throughout the Middle East the least disliked and least feared great foreign power. At the close of the Second World War the Near East was very friendly to the United States and her allies, said Ambassador Kamil Bey Abdul Rahim of Egypt (Congressional Record, June 12, 1951) in an address delivered at Princeton University on June 2, 1951. By 1952, however, a spirit of resentment and even revolt against the Western democracies was sweeping through the Middle East; for the unfortunate fact of our having lost our friends the Ambassador finds the reason in the policy of the West:
The Palestine question is an outstanding example of this policy. Everyone knows that the serious injustice inflicted upon the Arabs in Palestine has alienated them and undermined the stability of the area. The West‘s continued political and financial support of the Zionists in Palestine is not helping the relations with the Near East, nor is it strengthening the forces which are fighting communism there.
By being again honorable in our dealing with the Moslem nations and by helping them, with a supply of long-range bombers or otherwise, to defend their oil, for which we are paying them good money, and will continue to pay them good money, we could quickly create a situation under which the Soviet can not hope to conquer the Middle East. Thus lacking oil, the Soviet could not hope to conquer the world. It must not be forgotten, too, that apart from oil the Middle East has great strategy significance.
―Israel‖ and the adjacent Moslem lands are a vestibule which leads to Europe, to Asia, and to Africa.
In addition to building, primarily by honorable conduct and secondarily by thoughtfully planned assistance, a strength crescent from Spain through the Mediterranean and North Africa to the Middle East, other significant agenda include a solution to our present problem in Korea and plans for the safety of Japan, Formosa, and the Philippines. But as Senator Jenner of Indiana has pointed out, We cannot have peace in Asia if the negotiations are carried on by the men of Yalta (Human Events, May 30, 1951). Then, there is Alaska, one of whose islands, Little Diomede, belonging to Russia. Of the Soviet‘s two Far Eastern fronts, one is the hinterland of Vladivostol and the other is an armed quadrilateral opposite Nome, Alaska.
Here, according to the military critic, Hanson Baldwin, is a garrison which probably numbers more than 200,000 men (see article and map, New York Times, March 15, 1949). No specific suggestions are here made, but it seems obvious that the defense of Alaska should receive priority over at least some of our more far-flung global ventures.
In the conclusion of this section, a warning is in order, a warning that should be heeded in all of America‘s planning at home and abroad. The primary help we can give is to remain solvent. A bankrupt America would be worse than useless to its allies. Foreign military aid should e granted, therefore, with two associated principles. We should cease mere political bureaucracy- building in this country and cut to a reasonable minimum our government‘s home spending. We should insist that foreign governments receiving our aid should also throw their own energies and resources into the common cause.
There is no more dangerous fallacy than the general belief that America is excessively rich. Our natural resources are variously estimated at being from six percent to ten percent of the world‘s total. These slender resources are being more rapidly depleted than those of any other power. Our national debt also is colossal beyond anything known in other parts of the world. Can a spendthrift who is heavily in debt be properly called a wealthy man? By what yardstick then are we a rich nation?
Fortunately a few Americans in high places are awake to the danger of a valueless American dollar. General MacArthur, for instance, in his speech before the Massachusetts Legislature gave the following warning:
The free world‘s one great hope for survival now rests upon the maintaining and preserving of our own strength. Continue to dissipate it and that one hope is dead. If the American people would pass on the standard of life and the heritage of opportunity they themselves have enjoyed to their children and their children‘s children they should ask their representatives in government:
What is the plan for the easing of the tax burden upon us? What is the plan for bringing to a halt this inflationary movement which is progressively and inexorably decreasing the purchasing power of our currency, nullifying the protection of our insurance provisions, and reducing those of fixed income to hardship and despair?
(c) An early duty of a completely reconstituted Department of State will be to advise the Congress and the American people on the United Nations.
Launched in 1945 when our government‘s mania for giving everything to the Soviet was at its peak, the United Nations got off to an unfortunate start. Our most influential representative at San Francisco, The Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference of International Organization, was none other than Alger Hiss. It is not surprising, then, that United States leftists, from pink to vermilion, found homes in the various cubicles of the new organization. According to a personal statement to the author by the late Robert Watt, American Federation of Labor leader and authority on international affairs, all members except the chairman of one twenty-one-member U.S. contingent to the permanent UN staff were known Communists or fellow travelers. These people and others of the same sort are for the most part still in UN harness.
Moreover, and as is to be expected, the work of our own delegation cannot be impartially assessed as being favorable to the interest, or even the survival, of the United States as a nation. Very dangerous to us, for instance, is our wanton meddling into the internal affairs of other nations by such a program as the one Asia, Africa, and Latin America a main plank in its platform for States delegation [to the UN] will introduce a comprehensive resolution to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations‖ (despatch, August 1, by Michael L. Hoffman from Geneva to the New York Times, August 2, 1951). Can anyone with any sense think that our collection of leftists, etc., in the UN really know how to reform the economic and social structure of three continents? Is not the whole scheme an attack on the sovereignty of the nations whose land we mean to reform? Does the scheme not appear to have been concocted mainly if not solely to establish a precedent which will allow Communists and other Marxists to reform land ownership in the United States?
Meanwhile, certain international bodies have not delayed in making their plans for influencing the foreign and also the internal policies of the United States. For instance, at the World Jewish Conference which met in Geneva, Switzerland, on September 10, 1951, far and away the most important matter was said to be an opposition to the resurgence of Germany as a leading independent power (New York Times, September 10, 1951). The special dispatch to the New York Times continues as follows:
We are strongly and firmly opposed to the early emancipation of Germany from Allied control and to German rearmament, Dr. Maurice Perlzweig of New York, who represents Western Hemisphere Jewish communities, said today.
Leaders expect to formulate and send to the Foreign Ministers of Western powers the specific views of the world Jewish community on the German question.
The above quotation shows an international effort to shape foreign policy. At the same Congress, attention was also given to exerting influence within America: Dr. Goldmen said non-Zionists must learn to contribute to some Zionist programs with which they did ot agree.
Non-Zionists should not be unhappy if some money is used for Halutziuth [pioneering] training in the United States, he told a press conference. Zionists would be unable to accept any demand that no such training be undertaken, he added, how would outside power force its will upon the United States?
The day-by-day method is to exert economic pressure and to propagandize the people by the control of the media which shape public opinion Chapter V, above). At least one other way, however, has actually been rehearsed. Full details are given by John Jay Daly in an article U.N. Seizes, Rules American Cities in the magazine, National Republic (September, 1951). As described by Mr. Daly, troops flying the United Nations flag, a blue rectangle similar to the blue rectangle of the State of Israel, took over Culver City, Huntington Park, Inglewood, Hawthorne, and Compton, California. The military specialists took over the government in a surprise move, throwing the mayor of the city in jail and locking up the chief of police . . . and the chief of the fire department . . . . The citizens, by a proclamation posted on the front of City Hall, were warned that the area had been taken over by the armed forces of the United Nations. If inclined to the view that this United Nations operation, even though performed by U.S. troops, is without significance, the reader should recall that the United States has only one-sixtieth of the voting power in the Assembly of the United Nations.
The present location of the UN headquarters not only within the United States but in our most alien infested great city would make easy any outside interference intended to break down local sovereignty in this country, especially if large numbers of troops of native stock are overseas and if our own specialist contingents in the UN force should be composed of newcomers to the country. Such troops might conceivably be selected in quantity under a future UN rule that its troops should speak more than one language.
Such a rule, which on its face might appear reasonable, would limit American troops operating for the UN almost exclusively to those who are foreign-born or sons of foreign-born parents. This is true because few soldiers of old American stock speak any foreign languages, whereas refugees and other immigrants and their immediate descendants usually speak two—English, at least of a sort, and the language of the area from which they or their parents came.
As has been repeatedly stated on the floors of Congress, among others by Senator Pat McCarran on April 25, 1949 (see the government pamphlet, Communist Activities Among Aliens and National Groups, p. A1), the presence of the UN within the United States has the actual, not merely hypothetical, disadvantage of admitting to our borders under under diplomatic immunity a continuing stream of new espionage personnel who are able to contact directly the members of their already established networks within the country.
There are other signs that the UN organization is useless, as John T. Flynn has described it in a Liberty network broadcast (November, 1951). The formulation of the North Atlantic Defense Treaty or Security Alliance in 1949 was a virtual admission that the UN was dead as an influence for preventing major aggression. America‘s strong-fisted forcing of unwilling nations to vote for the admission of Israel dealt the UN a blow as effective as Russia‘s vetoes. Another problem to give Americans pause is the dangerous wording and possibly even more dangerous interpretation of some articles in the UN Covenant. There is even a serious question of a complete destruction of our sovereignty over our own land, not only by interpretations of UN articles by UN officials (see The United Nations—Action for Peace, by Marie and Louis Zocca, p. 56), but by judicial decisions of leftist-minded courts in this country. Thus in the case of Sci Fujii vs. the State of California Justice Emmet H. Wilson decided that an existing law of a state is unenforceable because of the United Nations Charter (These Days, by George Sokolsky, Washington Times Herald and other papers, March 9, 1951).
Lastly, and of great importance, is the consistent UN tendency to let the United States, with one vote in 60, bear not merely the principal burden of the organization but almost all of the burden. Thus in the UN-sponsored operation in Korea, America furnished ― Over 90% of the dead and injured (broadcast by Ex-President Herbert Hoover, December 20, 1950) among UN troops, South Koreans being excluded from the figures as South Korea is not a UN member. And as the months passed thereafter, the ratio of American casualties continued proportionately high. By the middle of the summer of 1951 more of our men had been killed and wounded in Korea than in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, and the Spanish-American War, combined! It is thus seen that the United Nations or ganization has failed miserably in what should be its main function, namely the prevention or stopping of war.
In view of the above entries on the loss side of the ledger, what has the United Nations accomplished? A United States representative, Mr. Harding Bancroft, furnished the answer in a spring of 1951 broadcast (NBC, The United Nations Is My Beat). The three successes of the Security Council cited by Mr. Bancroft were achieved in Palestine, the Netherlands East Indies, and Kashmir. With what yardstick does Mr. Bancroft measure success? Details cannot be given here, but surely the aggregate of the results in the three areas cited cannot be regarded as successful by anyone sympathetic with either Western Christian civilization or Moslem civilization!
Patriotic Americans should be warned, finally, against spurious attempts to draw parallels between the United States Constitution and United Nations regulations. The Constitution, with its first ten amendments, was designed specifically to curb the power of the Federal government and to safeguard the rights of states and individuals. On the other hand, the United Nations appears to have the goal of destroying many of the sovereign rights of the member nations and of putting individuals in jeopardy everywhere, particularly in the United States.
In view of all these matters, the American public is entitled to advice on the UN from a new clean leadership in the Department of State. The Augean stables of the UN are so foul that the removal of the filth from the present organization might be too difficult. Perhaps the best move would be to adjourn sine die.
Then, like-minded nations on our side, including the Moslem bloc, which a clean State Department would surely treat honorably, might work out an agreement advantageous to the safety and sovereignty of each other. Cleared of the booby traps, barbed wire, poisonous potions, and bad companions of the present organization, the new international body might achieve work of great value on behalf of world peace. In the U.S. delegation to the new organization, we should include Americans only, and no Achesonians or Hissites from the old. In any case the Congress needs and the people deserve a full report on the United Nations from a State Department which they can trust.
Lastly, but very important, the clean-out of our government will give us a powerful propaganda weapon against the masters of the Russian people. We must not forget the iron curtain over America (Chapter V) which has blacked out the truth that Russia (Chapter II) was founded by the Russia, who were men of the West, men from Scandinavia, whence sprang the whole Nordic race, including the great majority of all Western Europeans. Even in Spain and northern Italy the people are largely descended from Gothic ancestors who first passed from Sweden to the Baltic island of Gotland (or Gothland, hence their name) and then onward to their conquest and settlement of Southern and Western lands. Consequently, we should never speak in a derogatory manner of Russia or Russians. Each time we attack Russia‘ or the Russians when we meanthe Bolshevik hierarchy, or speak contemptuously of Asiatic hordes, or identify world communism as a Slav menace, we are providing grist for the Kremlin mills. Our press and pronouncements are fine-combed in Moscow for quotations (from Acheson‘s Gift to Stalin, The Freeman, August