Should we or should we not send special messages to the Esthonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians to whose independence President franklin Roosevelt, in one of his moods, committed himself? Should we or should we not direct special appeals to White Russians and to Ukrainians? These latter people have plenty of reasons for hating the rulers of Russia; for a rebellion in January, 1918, by Jews who did not want to be cut off from the Jews of Moscow and Leningrad was a principal factor in the loss of the Ukraine‘s old dream of independence (A History of the Ukraine, Hrushevsky, p. 539 and passim). Eecisions on the nature of our propaganda to the people behind the Iron Curtain should be made by patriotic Americans familiar with the current intelligence estimates on Soviet-held peoples, and not by persons addicted to the ideology of Communism and concerned for minority votes!
We must never forget, moreover, that the Russian people are at heart Christian. They were converted even as they emerged onto the stage of civilized modern statehood, and Christianity is in their tradition—as it is in ours.
We must finally not forget that leaders in Russia since 1917 are not patriotic Russians but are a hated coalition of renegade Russians with the remnants of Russia‘s old territorial and ideological enemy, the Judaized Khazars, who for centuries refused to be assimilated either with the Russian people or with Western Christian civilization.
In view of the facts of history, from which this book has torn the curtain of censorship, it is reasonable to assume that the true Russian people are restive and bitter under the yoke and the goading of alien and Iscariot rule. To this almost axiomatic assumption, there is much testimony. In his book The Choice, Boris Shubb states that in Russia There is no true loyalty to Stalin-Beria-Malenkov in any significant segment of the party, the state, the army, the police, or the people. In The Freeman (November 13, 1950) Rodney Gilbert says in an article Plan for Counter-Action: Finally, there is the Soviet Russian home front, where we probably have a bigger force in our side than all of the Western world could muster. According to the Catholic World (January, 1941): The Russian mind being Christian bears no resemblance to the official mind of the Politburo. Likewise, David Lawrence (U.S. News and World Report, December 25, 1950) says:
We must first designate our real enemies. Our real enemies are not the peoples of Soviet Russia or the peoples of the so-called Iron Curtain Countries‘. In Human Events (March 28, 1951), the Reader‘s Digest Editor Eugene Lyons quotes the current Saturday Evening Post headline Our enemies are the Red Tyrants not their slaves and with much documentation, as might be expected from one who was six years a foreign correspondent in the Soviet Union, reaches the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of the Soviet peoples hate their rulers and dream of liberation from the red yoke.
So, finally, General Fellers testifies thus in his pamphlet Thought War Against the Kremlin (Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 25 cents): Russia, like the small nations under its heel, is in effect an occupied country. General Fellers recommends that our leaders should not blame the Russian people for the peace-wrecking tactics of the Kremlin clique, but should make it clear that we share the aspirations of the Russians for freedom. The general scoffs at the idea that such propaganda is ineffective: From wartime results we know that effective broadcasts, though heard only by thousands, percolate to the millions. Countries denied freedom of press and speech tend to become huge whispering galleries; suppressed facts and ideas often carry farther than the official propaganda.
What an opportunity for all of our propaganda agencies, including the Voice of America! And yet there is testimony to the fact that our State Department has steadily refused suggestions that its broadcasts direct propaganda not against the Russian people but against their enslaving leaders. The Voice, which is not heard in this country, at least not by the general public, is said to be in large part an unconvincing of not repelling air mosaic of American frivolities presented as an introduction to American culture, all to no purpose, except perhaps to preempt from service to this country a great potential propaganda weapon.
The Voice appears also to have scant regard for truth, For instance, a CTPS dispatch from Tokyo on April 13 (Washington Times-Herald, April 14, 1951) reported as follows:
A distorted version of world reaction to Gen. MacArthur‘s removal is being broadcast by the Voice of America, controllers by the State department, a comparison with independent reports showed today.
Voice listeners here got an impression of virtually unanimous approval of President Truman‘s action. Sometimes the Voice is said actually to state to the enslaved Russian people that the United States has no interest in changing the government or social structure of the Soviet Union. For carefully documented details, see the feature article, Voice of America Makes Anti-Red Russians Distrust U.S.; Serves Soviet Interests in the Williams Intelligence Summary for June, 1951 (P.O. Box 868, Santa Ana, California).
Finally, it should be noted that in the summer of 1951, there was secret testimony to Senate Committees indicating that Communist sympathizers have infiltrated the State
Department‘s Voice of America Programs (AP dispatch in Richmond Times-Dispatch, July 10, 1951).
The apparently worse than useless Voice of America could, under a cleaned-up State Department, become quickly useful and powerful. We could use it to tell the Russian people that we know they were for centuries in the fold of Christian civilization and that we look forward to welcoming them back.
We could say to the Russian people that we have nothing against them and have under our laws removed from our government those leaders who for self-perpetuation in office or for other cause wanted a big foreign war. We could then invite Russian hearers of the broadcast to give thought to a similar step in their country. Such broadcasting, if it did not actually bring about the overthrow of the present rulers, would almost certainly give them enough concern to prevent their starting a war.
Such broadcasts also would pave the way to assistance from inside Russia in the tragic event that war should come. Broadcasts of the new type should Begin quickly, for the Soviet leaders have a thought censorship, even as we have, and our task will be increasingly difficult as each month sees the death of older people who will know the truth of our broadcasts from personal pre-1917 experience.
(e) The patriotic people of America should not lose hope. They should proceed with boldness, and joy in the outcome, for Right is on their side. Moreover, they are a great majority, and such a majority can make its will prevail any time it ceases to lick the boots of its captors.
One point of encouragement lies in the fact that things are not quite as bad as they were. Most patriotic people feel that their country is in the lowest depths in the early fifties. Conditions were even worse, however, in 1944, and seem worse now only because the pro-American element in the country is prevailing to the extent, at least, of turning on a little light in dark places.
Unquestionably, 1944 was the most dangerous year for America. Our President and the civil and military coterie about him were busily tossing our victory to the Soviet Union. In November the dying Democratic and Communist parties. The pilgrimage of homage and surrender to Stalin at Yalta (February, 1945) was being prepared. The darkest day was the black thirtieth of December when the Communists were paid off by the termination of regulations which had kept them out of the Military Intelligence Service. The United States seemed dying of the world epidemic of Red fever.
But on January 3, 1945, our country rallied. The new Congress had barely assembled when Mr. Sabbath of Illinois moved that the rules of the expiring Seventy-Eighth Congress be the rules of the new Seventy- Ninth Congress. Thereupon, Congressman John Elliott Rankin, Democrat, of Mississippi, sprang to his feet, and moved as an amendment that the expiring temporary Committee on Un-American Activities be made a permanent Committee of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Rankin explained the function of the proposed permanent committee as follows:
The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee, is authorized to make from time to time investigations of
(1) the extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States,
(2) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and
(3) all other questions in relation thereto that would and Congress in any necessary remedial legislation.
In support of his amendment to the Rules of the house, Mr. Rankin said:
The Dies committee, or the Committee on Un-American Activities, was created in 1938. It has done a marvelous work in the face of all the criticism that has been hurled at its chairman and at its members. I submit that during these trying times the Committee on Un-American Activities has performed a duty second to none ever performed by any committee of this House. Today, when our boys are fighting to preserve American institutions, I submit it is no time to destroy the records of that committee, it is no time to relax our vigilance. We should carry on in the regular way and keep this committee intact, and above all things, save those records.
Congressman Karl Mundt, Republican, of South Dakota, rose to voice his approval of the Rankin amendment. There was maneuvering against the proposal by Congressman Marcantonio of New York, Congressman Sabath of Illinois, and other congressmen of similar views, but Mr. Rankin, a skillful parliamentarian, forced a vote.
By 208 to 186, with 40 not voting, the Rankin amendment was adopted and the Committee on Un-American Activities became a permanent Committee of the House of Representatives (all details and quotations are from Congressional Record, House, January 3, 1945, pages 10-15—pages which deserve framing in photostat, if the original is not available, for display in every school building and veterans‘ club rooms in America).
The American Communists and fellow-travelers were stunned. Apart from violence, however, there was nothing they could do. Moves made as feelers showed them they could get nowhere with their hoped-for uprising in the American South, almost all of whose people were patriotic Americans. Also, except for two widely separated and quickly dwindling incidents, they got nowhere with their plans for a revolt in the army.
Despite its successes at Yalta, and despite its continued influence with the American Administration, the Soviet moved more cautiously. The Rankin amendment gave the United States of America a chance to survive as a nation under its Constitution. Is it then to be wondered at that Mr. Rankin has been subject to bitter reprisals ever since by Communists and fellow-travelers and their dupes?
Though the Rankin amendment gave America its chance to live, the recovery has been slow and there have been many relapses. This book, The Iron Curtain Over America, has diagnosed our condition in the mid-century and has suggested remedies, the first of which must be a cleaning-out of the subversives in the executive departments and agencies in Washington. The degree of infestation by Communists, and those indifferent to or friendly to Communism, in our bureaucracy in Washington is staggering beyond belief.
Details are increasingly available to those who study the publications of the congressional committees concerned with the problem. Communist Propaganda Activities in the United States, a report published early in 1952 by the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, deals principally with Communist propaganda carried on with the help of the Department of State and the Department of Justice of the United States! The report (pp. v-ix) climaxes a stinging rebuke of the State Department‘s pro-Communist maneuvers with this statement:
The policy of the Department of State is in effict an administrative nullification of an established law. One result of the nullification of existing law was the dissemination in the United States in 1950 of more than 1,000,000 Communist books, magazines, and other printed documents, 2,275 Soviet films, and 25,080 phonograph records (pp.24-25).
By a special Department of Justice ruling, these were dispatched individually to state institutions, universities or colleges, or to professors or other individuals, with no statement required on or with any of the parcels that they were sent out for propaganda purposes or had emanated from the Soviet Union or some other Communist government! Is this what the American people want? It is what they have been getting in Washington.
Following a removal of top leaders and their personal henchmen, there will be no reason for despair even for the departments of State and Defense. In the Department of State there are many whose records suggest treason, but there are also many workers of low and medium rank whose tenacious patriotism has in a number if instances prevented a sell-out of our country. These people will rally to a new leadership. The same is true in the Department of Defense. Except for a mere handful, committed to wrong-doing to cover their old sins of omission or commission, our generals and admirals, like all other ranks, have the good of their country at heart.
Disciplined by tradition to subordinate themselves to civilian authority, our General Staff officers pursue a hated policy from which there is for them no escape, for on one hand they do not wish to denounce the administration and on the other they see no end good for America in the strategically unsound moves they are ordered to make.
Below the appointive ranks, the civilian personnel, both men and women, of such strategic agencies as Military Intelligence are with few exceptions devoted and loyal and competent Americans. With our top state and defense leadership changed, our policy shaped by patriots, our working level Department of Defense staff will be able to furnish a strategically sound program for the defense of this country, which must stand not only for us and our children but as the fortress of Western Christian civilization.
Meanwhile, patriotic State Department personnel face a ghastly dilemma. If they remain, they are likely to be thought of as endorsing the wrong policies of their superiors. If they resign, they are likely to see their positions filled by persons of subversive leanings. Fortunately for America, most of them have decided to stick to their posts and will be there to help their new patriotic superiors, after a clean-up has been effected.
A clean-up in our government will give a new life not only to patriotic Washington officials, civilian and military, but to our higher military and naval officers everywhere. Their new spirit will bring confidence to all ramks and to the American people. Once again, military service will be a privilege and an honor instead of, as at present to most people, a sentence to a period of slavery and possible death for a policy that has never been stated and cannot be stated, for it is at best a vote-garnering, bureaucracy-building, control-establishing program of expediency.