Naked Communist

The Rise of Populism


foxnews contrived islamophobia iraq war neocon zionists
Go to Russiagate page....Rachel Maddow and Wolf Blitzer demonized Trump for nearly three years, then the truth hit...their ratings suffered greatly

amazon wordpress banned holocaust revisionist books new source
There's no principle difference between NeoNazism, Jewish Chosenness and White Supremacism...all forms of supremacism are wrong....

holocaust revisionism holohoax auschwitz ig farben hitler germany nuremberg
Amazon, WordPress and other have banned Holocaust revisionist books, but that doesn't mean they're not available...MORE

jfk rfk jfk-jr assassination johnson ben gurion israel
Amazon, WordPress and other have banned Holocaust revisionist books, but that doesn't mean they're not available...MORE

clinton obama bush death list
Clinton Bush Obama death lists...over 300 names suspicious deaths...Clintons by far the worst

cultural marxism frankfurt school jews destroy western culture marxism socialism communism
Cultural Marxist goal is to destroy Christian nationalist culture. LGBTQ is just one disengenuously elevate LGBTQ above all other issues as a club against white males...all for Jewish megalomania

yellow vests france nonviolent protest 1 percent 99 percent midwest trump populism
The Yellow Vests movement in France has severely weakoned the (((globalist Jews))) despite government attempts to infiltrate groups with violent actors

newsfollowup link 9-11 jfk holocaust hoax cultural marxism to modern events
Go to original home page

cultural marxism frankfurt school jews destroy western culture marxism socialism communism illegal immigration
Immigration drives are funded by deep state cultural marxists to advance the cause of socialism then Communism

cultural marxism frankfurt school jews destroy western culture marxism socialism communism illegal immigration
Communism is just Talmudism politicized.. both seek centralized power, abolish the family, state and Christian religion

9-11 truth israel nuked wtc silverstein netanyahu false flag war iraq afghanistan patriot act
9/11 was a false flag attack on America by a cabal consisting of Israel, US, Britain and Saudi Arabia...executed to start Iraq War

Naked Communist by W. Cleon Skousen

The Naked
W. Cleon Skousen
Copyright © 2007 by C&J Investments
Published by C&J Investments
Print Edition ISBN: 0-686095-60-X
Electronic Book ISBN: 978-0-910558-54-9
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means whatsoever without written permission from
the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations
embodied in critical articles and reviews.
To contact C&J Investments
regarding any comments, questions,
or information about interviews and
speaking engagements please
One of the most fantastic phenomena of modern
times has been the unbelievable success of the Communist conspiracy to enslave mankind. Part of
this has been the result of two species of ignorance --
ignorance concerning the constitutional requirements
needed to perpetuate freedom, and secondly,
ignorance concerning the history, philosophy and
strategy of World Communism.
This study is designed to bring the far-flung facts
about Communism into a single volume. It contains a
distillation of more than one hundred books and
treatises -- many of them written by Communist
authors. It attempts to present the Communist in his
true native elements, stripped of propaganda and
pretense. Hence, the title, "The Naked Communist."
Students in the western part of the world have a
tendency to shy away from the obscure complexity of
Communism because they have a feeling they are
groping about in a vacuum of un-known quantities. It
therefore became the author's objective many years
ago to try and clarify these concepts so that they could
be more readily understood and thereby become less
frightening. The most terrifying of all human fears is
"fear of the unknown" and consequently it seemed
highly desirable to disarm the Communist
revolutionists of any such supreme advantage by
spreading before the student the whole picture of
Marxism which is simply "modern materialism in
A panoramic study of Communism might easily
degenerate into a long list of dates, names, and
platitudes without helping the student to gain a
genuine understanding of the history and philosophy
of Marxism. Therefore, in this study, an attempt has
been made to present Communism as the living,
breathing, vibrating force in the earth which it really is.
The political development, the philosophy, the
economic theory and the big names in World
Communism have all been presented in their
historical setting.
Since an ever increasing number of disillusioned
Communist officials have fled from behind the Iron Curtain, it has been possible to remove much of the mystery which formerly obscured a correct
understanding of the Marxian-disciplined mind. This
study therefore presents the Marxian civilization without reference to its propaganda claims but within
the realm of reality where, during each passing day, millions of human beings are vicariously learning for
the rest of the race the true meaning of life under Communism.
To those who have never taken occasion to study the
past one hundred years of Marxism, this presentation may at first seem somewhat harsh. But that is
because the exposed seams of Communism are
inherently harsh. Marx designed it that way. From a
comfortable armchair in a cloistered study it is
sometimes difficult for a student to catch the spirit and
substance of Communism in action. But the Korean
veteran, the Iron Curtain refugee, the returning
ambassador from Moscow -- these who have felt the
physical and psychological impact of World
Communism -- may count this study under-drawn and
The reader should be warned that the complex nature
of Communism prevents some of this material from
being geared to rapid reading. Sometimes whole
volumes have been digested into a few paragraphs. It will be helpful to the reader if sufficient time is taken to
explore rather thoroughly the technical or
philosophical chapters before proceeding. To help
the reader identify the most significant points in the
text, a list of preliminary questions is presented at the
beginning of each chapter. While seeking to be brief,
the author hopes he has not been obscure.
There are many to whom I am indebted for
assistance, suggestions and technical data used in
connection with the preparation of this work. Since the writing and much of the research was completed while I was a member of the faculty of Brigham Young
University I received much valuable help from the members of the faculty as well as the administrative
staff. I am also indebted to several of my former
associates in the FBI with whom I studied Communist
philosophy, Communist subversion and Communist
espionage during my sixteen years with that
The impressive vignette illustrations heading each
chapter throughout this book are the work of the
famous American artist, Arnold Friberg. They
exemplify his ability to condense a complex idea into
a simple, forceful, pictorial symbol. His magnificent
gallery of Biblical paintings which he did for Cecil B. DeMille's production of "The Ten Commandments"
has been widely acclaimed during their worldwide
tour of exhibition. I am proud to have the text of these
pages enhanced by the talented hand of such a good
Another close associate, Keith Eddington, is
responsible for the striking jacket and impressive
design of this book.
The tedious task of typing the manuscript and reams
of research data for the project was capably
performed by Velora Gough Stuart and Louise Godfrey.
The bulk of the credit for the final completion of the work should go to my wife who efficiently managed
the affairs of eight robust offspring while their father
completed the research and writing for the manuscript. I am deeply grateful to all those who
contributed time, skill and encouragement to bring the work to final fruition.
W. Cleon Skousen
Salt Lake City, Utah
November 1, 1958
The Rise of the Marxist Man
It is a terrible and awesome thing when a man sets
out to create all other men in his own image. Such
became the goal and all consuming ambition of Karl
Marx. Not that he would have made each man equal
to himself; in fact, it was quite the contrary. The image
he hoped to construct was a great human colossus with Karl Marx as the brain and builder and all other men serving him as the ears and eyes, feet and
hands, mouth and gullet. In other words, Marx
surveyed the world and dreamed of the day when the whole body of humanity could be forced into a
gigantic social image which conformed completely to Marx's dream of a perfect society.
To achieve his goal, Marx required two things: First,
the total annihilation of all opposition, the downfall of
all existing governments, all economies and all
societies. "Then," he wrote, "I shall stride through the wreckage a creator!" The second thing he needed was a new kind of human being.
He visualized a regimented breed of Pavlovian men whose minds could be triggered into immediate
action by signals from their masters. He wanted a
race of men who would no longer depend upon free will, ethics, morals or conscience for guidance.
Perhaps, without quite realizing it, Marx was setting
out to create a race of human beings conditioned to
think like criminals.
Producing such a race had been the dream of powerhungry men for more than 4000 years. Nimrod had
projected the design, Plato polished it, Saint Simon
sublimated it -- now Marx materialized it.
Today this breed of criminally conditioned man walks
the earth in sufficient numbers to conquer countries or
continents, to change laws and boundaries, to decree
war or peace. He might well be called Homo-Marxian
-- the Marxist Man. He has made it terribly clear that
he intends to become the man of the twentieth
Homo-Marxian is frightening and puzzling to the rest
of humanity because a criminally conditioned mind
does not respond the way normal people expect.
For example, if a well meaning person invited a
professional criminal into his home for dinner the
shifty eyed guest would be likely to survey the fine
variety of choice foods, the expensive silverware and
shiny goblets, and completely miss the warm sincerity
and friendship which the host was trying to convey. In
fact, the criminal mind would probably conclude that
his host was not only soft hearted but soft headed.
Eventually, he would get around to deciding that such
a weak man could not possibly deserve so many fine
things. Then he would spend the rest of the evening
figuring out how he could return in the darkness of the
night and relieve his host of all his bounteous
Anyone familiar with the history of Communist
leadership during the past one hundred years will
immediately recognize this same kind of mind at work. The flagrant abuse of U.S. friendship and
generosity during World War II is typical.
Homo-Marxian puzzles all those who try to work with
him because he seems irrational and therefore
unpredictable. In reality, however, the Marxist Man has
reduced his thinking to the lowest common
denominator of values taken from nature in the raw. He lives exclusively by the jungle law of selfish
survival. In terms of these values he is rational almost
to the point of mathematical precision. Through calm
or crisis his responses are consistently elemental and
therefore highly predictable.
Because Homo-Marxian considers himself to be made entirely of the dust of the earth, he pretends to
no other role. He denies himself the possibility of a
soul and repudiates his capacity for immortality. He
believes he had no creator and has no purpose or
reason for existing except as an incidental
accumulation of accidental forces in nature.
Being without morals, he approaches all problems in
a direct, uncomplicated manner. Self-preservation is
given as the sole justification for his own behavior,
and "selfish motives" or "stupidity" are his only
explanations for the behavior of others. With Homo- Marxian the signing of fifty-three treaties and
subsequent violation of fifty-one of them is not
hypocrisy but strategy. The subordination of other men's minds to the obscuring of truth is not deceit but
a necessary governmental tool. Marxist Man has
convinced himself that nothing is evil which answers
the call of expediency. He has released himself from
all the confining restraints of honor and ethics which mankind has previously tried to use as a basis for
harmonious human relations.
History is demonstrating that because of his mental
conditioning, Homo-Marxian is probably the most
insecure of all men in his feelings. Since he believes
himself to be an accidental phenomenon in a
purposeless universe, he has an insatiable appetite
to bring all things under his total domination. He
admits that until this is done he cannot feel secure. Not only must he conquer the human race, but he has
assigned himself the task of conquering matter,
conquering space, and conquering all the forces of
cosmic reality so as to bring order out of natural
chaos. He must do this, he says, because man is the
only creature in existence which has the accidental
but highly fortunate capacity to do intelligent, creative
thinking. He believes that since Homo-Marxian is the most advanced type of man, he must accept the
responsibilities of a supreme being. He is perfectly
sincere in his announcement that Homo-Marxian
proposes to become the ultimate governor and god of
the earth and then of the universe.
Under the impact of such sweeping theoretical
ambitions, many non-Marxists have been caught in
the emotional tide of this ideological fantasia and
have allowed themselves to be carried along in the
current toward the shores of what they hoped would
be a promised land of man-made godliness. However, in recent years a growing number of these
pilgrims have risked life itself to come back to reality.
Each one returns with the same story. Homo-Marxian was found to behave exactly like the graduate
creature from the jungle which he believes himself to
be. He regards all others with fearful suspicion and
responds to each problem as though his very
existence were at stake. Although he demands the
right to rule humanity, he disdainfully rejects the most
basic lessons learned during thousands of years of
human experience. Returning pilgrims bear one witness: Homo-Marxian has reversed the direction of
history. He has turned man against himself.
It is in this historical crisis that man finds himself
today. Marxist Man could not have come upon the
earth at a more illogical time. In an age when
technological advances have finally made it feasible
to adequately feed, clothe and house the entire
human race, Marxist Man stands as a military threat to
this peaceful achievement. His sense of insecurity
drives him to demand exclusive control of human
affairs in a day when nearly all other peoples would
like to create a genuine United Nations dedicated to world peace and world-wide prosperity. Although man
can travel faster than sound and potentially provide
frequent, intimate contacts between all cultures and all
peoples, Marxist Man insists on creating iron barriers
behind which he can secretly work.
Marxist Man makes no secret of his ultimate
objectives. He is out to rule the world. Because Homo-Marxian is still an adolescent he knows he
cannot devour the whole human race in one greedy
gulp. Therefore, he must be satisfied with one chunk
at a time. As we shall see later, he has adopted an
orderly "time-table of conquest" which he is following with a deadly fixation. According to Communist
prophecy, time is running out on the free world.
This dilemma leaves the unconquered portion of
frightened humanity with only three possible courses
of future action:
1. They can meekly capitulate.
2. They can try to co-exist.
3 . They can set about to pull the blustering bully
As far as this writer is concerned there is absolutely
no question whatever as to the course of action free men must ultimately take. In fact, it is the only choice
the law of survival allows. Surely no man who has felt
the throbbing pound of freedom in his veins could
countenance capitulation as a solution. And no man who knows what lies behind the lethal Communist
program of "co-existence" would dare accept that
proposal as a long range solution.
What then remains?
Several years ago while serving with the FBI this writer became aware that the experts on Marxism
have known for a long time that there are definite ways to stop Communism cold. Furthermore, if free men move in time, this can be done without a major war! That is why this book was written. It was written
under the persuasion that modern men would be
foolish indeed if they accepted the phenomenon of
Homo-Marxian as a permanent fixture in the earth.
There are well established and easily understood
historical reasons why every legitimate influence
should be brought to bear on the removal of this
roadblock from the pathway of normal human
advancement. This must be done for the sake of
Homo-Marxian as well as for the rest of humanity. He
is the victim of a man-made experiment, trapped in
his own self-perpetuating cycle of human negation. As
long as free men are the prevailing majority in the
earth there is a very good chance of breaking this
cycle. To do so, however, free men must achieve an
intelligent and dynamic solidarity at least as strong as
the illusory but firmly fixed purposes of Homo-Marxian.
At the conclusion of this study there are listed a
number of policies which, if used in time, could
remove the roadblock that Marxist Man has thrown
across the pathway of the race. These policies are
solutions which automatically spring out of an
understanding of the history, philosophy and ultimate
objectives of Marxism. They are also the cold hard
facts which have grown out of our bitter experiences
in attempting to deal with Marxist Man.
If enough people will study the problem and move
across the world in one vast united front it is entirely
possible that the race can celebrate the close of the
Twentieth Century with this monumental achievement:
Freedom in our time for all men!
Chapter One
The Founders of Communism
In this chapter we shall try to become acquainted with
two men. The first is Karl Marx, the originator of
Communism, and the second is Friedrich Engels, his
collaborator. We shall try to present their lives the way
the Communists present them -- not as the soft,
visionary social reformers which so many text books
seem anxious to describe, but rather as the twofisted, power hungry revolutionists which their closest
followers found them to be. Although presented in
brief summary, this chapter attempts to include
sufficient details so that the student of Communism
can answer these questions:
Why do Marxist writers call their founder a "genius"
yet frankly admit he was "a violent, quarrelsome,
contentious man, a dictator and a swashbuckler"?
Was Marx well educated? What was his nationality?
Where did he do most of his revolutionary writing?
How was it that Marx never acquired a profession, an
office, an occupation or a dependable means of
How did Engels differ from Marx?
What were the six principal goals which Marx and
Engels set forth in the Communist Manifesto?
Why did Marx believe one of his first tasks was to
"de-throne God"? Why did he think his book, Capital, would change the world?
Why did Marx fail in his two attempts to create
organizations for the promotion of world revolution?
London, 1853
On a chilly, foggy day in 1853, a British government
official stood in the drizzling rain before the doorway
of a human hovel in the heart of London's slums. He
knocked and after a short delay was admitted. As the
officer entered the room thick clouds of smoke and
tobacco fumes billowed about his head causing him
to choke and cough while his eyes watered. Through
the haze he saw the proprietor of the slum dwelling, a
barrel-chested man with disheveled hair and a bushy
beard. The man greeted the officer in a strong
German accent, offered him a clay pipe and then motioned him toward a broken-backed chair.
If the officer had not known better he would never have
guessed that the bushy-bearded man who sat before
him was a graduate of a university with a Ph.D.
degree. Nor that the wife who had just hustled the
children into a back room was the daughter of a German aristocrat. Yet such was the case. This was
the residence of Dr. and Mrs. Karl Marx.
At the moment Karl Marx was a political fugitive --
having been driven from Germany, France and
Belgium. England had granted him domicile along with other revolutionary leaders from the Continent
and for this Marx was grateful. It gave him a lifelong
base from which to continue his revolutionary work.
On this particular day the presence of the officer was
no cause for alarm. It was the routine check which the
British Government made on all political exiles living
in England. Nor was the officer hostile. He found the Marxes strange but interesting people who could
engage in very lively conversation on world problems while sitting blissfully in a domestic environment of
incomprehensible confusion. The officer later included
his puzzled observations concerning the Marxes in his
official report:
"(Marx) lives in one of the worst, therefore one of the
cheapest, neighborhoods in London. He occupies
two rooms. The room looking out on the street is the
parlor, and the bedroom is at the back. There is not
one clean or decent piece of furniture in either room,
but everything is broken, tattered and torn, with thick
dust over everything and the greatest untidiness
everywhere. In the middle of the parlor there is a large
old-fashioned table covered with oilcloth. On it there
are manuscripts, books and newspapers, as well as
the children's toys, odds and ends and his wife's
sewing basket, cups with broken rims, dirty spoons,
knives and forks, lamps, an ink-pot, tumblers, some
Dutch clay-pipes, tobacco ashes -- all in a pile on the
same table.... But all these things do not in the least
embarrass Marx or his wife. You are received in the most friendly way and cordially offered pipes, tobacco
and whatever else there may happen to be. Eventually
a clever and interesting conversation arises which makes amends for all the domestic deficiencies."1
Thus we are introduced to one of the most dramatic
personalities to cross the pages of history during the
nineteenth century. And one who would have a greater
impact dead than alive. Biographers would grapple with the enigma of Marx's life. At one moment Marx would be called "the greatest genius of this age," and
a moment later even his disciples would feel forced to
call him "a violent, quarrelsome, contentious man, a
dictator and a swashbuckler, one at feud with all the world and continually alarmed lest he should be
unable to assert his superiority."2
Such were the contradictory, surging forces of human
dynamics which found expression in the turbulent
personality of Karl Marx.
Karl Marx:"Ifwe can butweld our souls together,
then with contempt shall I fling my glove in the world's face,
then shall I stride through the wreckage a creator."
The Early Life of Karl Marx
Karl Marx first saw the light of day at Treves, Germany, May 5, 1818. He certainly had no need to
apologize for his progenitors. For many generations
his male ancestors on both sides had been
outstanding scholars and distinguished rabbis. However, the father of Karl Marx decided to break the
ties of the past both religiously and professionally. He withdrew his family from the local synagogue to join
the congregation of a local protestant faith and then
reached out after professional recognition as a
practicing attorney. Karl Marx was six years of age when the traditional moorings of the family were thus
uprooted, and some biographers of Marx attribute his
rejection of religion in later years to the conflicts which
this sudden change in his life precipitated.
In elementary school young Karl revealed himself to
be a quick, bright scholar. He also revealed a quality which would plague him the rest of his life -- his
inability to keep a friend. Seldom, in all of Marx's writings, do we find a reference to any happy boyhood
associations. Biographers say he was too intense,
too anxious to dominate the situation, too concerned
about personal success, too belligerent in his selfassertiveness, to keep many friends. However, Karl
Marx was not lacking in sentiment and genuine
hunger for affection. At 17, when he began his
university career, the letters which he wrote to his
parents occasionally unveiled deeply sentimental, woman-like feelings. Here is an example:
"In the hope that the clouds which hang over our family will gradually disperse; that I shall be permitted to
share your sufferings and mingle my tears with yours,
and, perhaps, in direct touch with you, to show the
profound affection, the immeasurable love, which I
have not always been able to express as I should like;
in the hope that you, too, my fondly and eternally loved
Father, bearing in mind how much my feelings have
been storm-tossed, will forgive me because my heart must often have seemed to you to have gone astray when the travail of my spirit was depriving it of the
power of utterance; in the hope that you will soon be
fully restored to health, that I shall be able to clasp you
in my arms, and to tell you all that I feel, I remain
always your loving son, Karl."
Such expressions must have puzzled the elder Marx.
Throughout his career as a father he was never able
to counsel or cross this hot-tempered son without
precipitating an emotional explosion. The letters of
Karl Marx make frequent reference to the violent
quarrels between himself and his parents; the letters
from Karl's parents complain of his egoism, his lack
of consideration for the family, his constant demands
for money and his discourtesy in failing to answer most of their letters.
Marx as a Young Man
It was in the fall of 1835 that Marx entered the University of Bonn to study law. This was a hectic
year. He scandalized his parents by joining a tavern
club, running himself deeply in debt and almost
getting himself expelled for "nocturnal drunkenness
and riot." His studies were most unsatisfactory and he
threatened to become a professional poet instead of
a lawyer. In the summer of 1836 he fought a duel and
received a wound over the eye. It was finally decided
that it would be better for the University of Bonn if Karl
Marx transferred to some other university. The elder Marx heartily agreed. Karl was sent to Berlin.
It was at the University of Berlin that the intellectual
forces in Karl Marx became sinews and the whole
pattern of his life began to take shape. Although he
complied with his father's wishes and studied law, it was a half-hearted camouflage to cover up his avid
exploration of philosophy. In the midst of this
exploration his father died and Marx immediately
came out in the open with his announcement that he would seek an academic career. He wanted to
occupy a chair of philosophy at some university. Marx
chose for his doctoral dissertation: "The Difference
between the Natural Philosophy of Democritus and of
In this study he favored the materialism of Epicurus
because it allowed for an energizing principle in matter. He thought that if matter were auto-dynamic it would do away with the need for a Creator, a
designer or a governing force in the universe. The
anti-religious sentiments of Marx found further
expression in his thesis when he chose for its motto
the cry of Prometheus: "In one word -- I hate all the
gods!" During this period of intellectual incubation
three things dominated the thinking of Karl Marx: his
desire to discover a philosophy of nature; his desire
to completely repudiate all forms of religion; his
desire to win the hand of the daughter of Baron von Westphalen.
While Marx was at the University of Berlin he fell in with a left-wing school of Hegelians who were
followers of the German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm
Hegel. At the moment their whole energy was
consumed by a desire to liquidate Christianity. David
Friedrich Strauss had published his Life of Jesus in
1835 and shocked all Germany with his contention
that the Gospels were not true historical documents
but were merely myths which he believed evolved
from the communal imagination of early Christians. A
close associate of Marx, Bruno Bauer, wrote on the
same theme in 1840 under the title, Historical
Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels. In this book he
claimed the Gospels were forgeries. He said Jesus
had never existed, that he was a figure of fiction and
therefore Christianity was a fraud.
At this point Bauer and Marx decided they would
boldly publish a Journal of Atheism, but the magazine
lacked financial sponsorship and died in gestation.
Nevertheless, the anti-Christian campaign gained
another eloquent protagonist named Ludwig
Feuerbach who came out in 1841 with his Essence of
Christianity. He not only ridiculed Christianity but
presented the thesis that man is the highest form of
intelligence in the entire universe. This exotic flash of
speculation fascinated Marx. He had written the same
idea into his thesis for a doctorate. Marx had bluntly
said it is necessary "to recognize as the highest
divinity, the human self-consciousness itself!"
The government's reaction to this anti-Christian
campaign took a serious turn; therefore Marx decided
it would not be prudent to present his thesis to the University of Berlin where he had been studying. His
friend, Bruno Bauer, suggested that he go to the University of Jena. Marx followed this suggestion and
consequently received his degree of Doctor of
Philosophy from that institution in April, 1841.
Shortly afterwards, however, a leveling blow wiped out
his passionate ambition to become a professor of
philosophy at some German university. This resulted
from the fact that Marx collaborated with Bauer in writing a pamphlet which was vigorously investigated
because of its revolutionary flavor. When the Prussian
officials identified the authors, Bauer was summarily
dismissed from the University of Bonn and Marx was
assured that he would never be allowed to teach at
any university inGermany.
Now the revolutionary spirit flamed high in Marx;
somehow he must start a movement to remake the world. However, to succeed in such a task he felt he must have the companionship of Jenny von Westphalen, the attractive and popular daughter of a German aristocrat who lived in Marx's hometown. For
seven years he had corresponded with her. One of his
letters made it clear that if she married him she would
become the wife of a revolutionary. Said he: "Jenny! If we can but weld our souls together, then with
contempt shall I fling my glove in the world's face, then
shall I stride through the wreckage a creator!"3
In June, 1843, the wedding took place. At the time the
bridegroom was unemployed and Jenny von Westphalen soon discovered that this was to be a
permanent characteristic of their entire married life.
Karl Marx never acquired the slightest comprehension
of the responsibilities which a husband assumes as
the head of a family. Nevertheless, Jenny von Westphalen remained loyal and devoted to Karl Marx
under circumstances which would have crushed a woman of weaker mettle. After the marriage they had
a five month honeymoon following which they went to
Paris, where Marx hoped to collaborate in publishing
a revolutionary organ called The Franco-German
Year Books. The publication collapsed after its first
issue and Marx spent the next fifteen months in the
pleasant task of "studying and writing."
This was to be the pattern of his whole life. In later
years while his family was starving he could be found
at the library devoting himself to the interesting but, for
him, completely unremunerative study of higher mathematics. Voltaire referred derisively to the breed
of men who cannot run their own families and
therefore retreat to their attics so that from there they
can run the whole world. Marx seemed to fit this
pattern. Although he seemed physically indolent, Marx was actually capable of prodigious quantities of
intellectual work if it dealt with a subject which
interested him. Otherwise, he would not stir. As a
result of these personal characteristics, Marx never
did acquire a profession, an office, a regular
occupation or a dependable means of livelihood. Concerning this phase of his career a friendly
biographer states:
"Regular work bored him; conventional occupation put
him out of humor. Without a penny in his pocket, and with his shirt pawned, he surveyed the world with a
lordly air.... Throughout his life he was hard up. He was ridiculously ineffectual in his endeavors to cope with the economic needs of his household and family;
and his incapacity in monetary matters involved him in
an endless series of struggles and catastrophes. He was always in debt; was incessantly being dunned by
creditors.... Half his household goods were always at
the pawnshop. His budget defied all attempts to set it
in order. His bankruptcy was chronic. The thousands
upon thousands which Engels handed over to him
melted away in his fingers like snow."4
This brings us to the only close friend Karl Marx ever
had -- Friedrich Engels.
FriedrichEngels, Marx's collaborator in the development
ofCommunist theory:"We say: 'Ala guerre comme a la guerre'; we do not promise any freedom, nor any democracy."
Friedrich Engels
In many ways Engels was the very opposite of Karl
Marx. He was tall, slender, vivacious and good
natured. He enjoyed athletics, liked people and was
by nature an optimist. He was born in Barmen, Germany, November 28, 1820, the son of a textile manufacturer who owned large factories both in
Barmen, Germany, and in Manchester, England.
From his earliest youth Engels chafed under the iron
discipline of his father, and he learned to despise the
textile factories and all they represented. As he
matured it was natural that he should have lined
himself up with the "industrial proletariat."
For the son of a bourgeois businessman, young
Engels had a surprisingly limited education; at least it
did not include any extensive university training. But what he lacked in formal training he supplied through
hard work and native talent. He spent considerable
time in England and learned both English and French with such facility that he succeeded in selling articles
to liberal magazines of both languages.
Biographers have emphasized that while the hearty
and attractive Engels differed in personal traits from
the brooding, suspicious Marx, nevertheless, the two
of them followed an identical course of intellectual
development. Engels, like Marx, quarreled bitterly with
his father, took to reading Strauss's Life of Jesus, fell
in with the same radical left-wing Hegelians who had
attracted Marx, became an agnostic and a cynic, lost
confidence in the free-enterprise economy of the
Industrial Revolution and decided the only real hope
for the world was Communism.
Engels had been an admirer of Marx long before he
had a chance to meet him. It was in August, 1844, that
he traveled to Paris for the specific purpose of visiting
Marx. The magnetic attraction between the two men was instantaneous. After ten days both men felt it was
their destiny to work together. It was during this same
ten days that Marx converted Engels from a Utopian Communist to an outright revolutionist. He convinced
Engels that there was no real hope for humanity in the
idealism of Robert Owen or Saint-Simon but that
conditions called for a militant revolution to overthrow
existing society. Engels agreed and proceeded back
to Germany.
Six months later Marx was expelled from France,
along with other revolutionary spirits, and took up
residence in Brussels, Belgium. Here Marx and
Engels wrote The Holy Family, a book designed to
rally around them those Communists who were willing
to completely disavow any connection with the socalled "peaceful reforms" of philanthropy, Utopianism
or Christian morality. The red flag of revolution was up
and Marx and Engels considered themselves the
royal color-guard.
The strange relationship which rapidly developed
between Marx and Engels can be understood only when it is realized that Engels considered it a
privilege to be associated with such a genius as Marx. Among other things, he counted it an honor to
be allowed to assume responsibility for Marx's
financial support. Shortly after Marx was expelled from
France, Engels sent him all the ready cash in his
possession and promised him more: "Please take it
as a matter of course that it will be the greatest
pleasure in the world to place at your disposal the fee
I hope shortly to receive for my English literary
venture. I can get along without any money just now,
for my governor (father) will have to keep me in funds. We cannot allow the dogs to enjoy having involved
you in pecuniary embarrassment by their infamous
This new partnership between Marx and Engels gave
them both the courage to immediately launch an
International Communist League based on the need
for a violent revolution. They planned to use the workers in Germany and France as the backbone for
their new political machine but this proved bitterly
disappointing. After spending several months among
the French workers Engels castigated them because
they "prefer the most preposterous day-dreaming,
peaceful plans for inaugurating universal happiness." He told Marx that the tinder for a revolution in France was nonexistent. Having thus failed in their plan to
build their own revolutionary organization, Marx and
Engels decided to take over one that was already in
existence. InAugust, 1847, they succeeded in gaining
control of the "Workers' Educational Society" in
Brussels. This immediately gave them prestige
among reform organizations in Europe. It also gave
them the first opportunity to extend their influence in
England. At this point Marx and Engels would have
been surprised to know that England rather than the Continent would become the headquarters for their
revolutionary work.
The Communist Manifesto
During November, 1847, word came from London
that the "Federation of the Just" (later known as the Communist League) wanted Marx and Engels to
participate in their second congress as
representatives of the Communist organizations in
Brussels. Marx and Engels not only attended the
congress but practically took it over. By staying up most of the night laying their plans and by using
shrewd strategy at each of the meetings, they
succeeded in getting the congress to adopt all of their
basic views. Marx and Engels were then
commissioned to write a declaration of principles or a
"Manifesto to the World." They returned to Brussels
and immediately set to work with Marx pouring into
the text his passionate plea for a revolution. When
they were through they had announced to mankind
that the new program of International Communism
stood for: 1. the overthrow of capitalism, 2. the
abolition of private property, 3. the elimination of the
family as a social unit, 4. the abolition of all classes, 5.
the overthrow of all governments, and 6. the
establishment of a communist order with communal
ownership of property in a classless, stateless
society. To accomplish this, the Communist
Manifesto was crystal clear as to the course to be
"In short, the Communists everywhere support every
revolutionary movement against existing social
conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a
Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing
to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!"
The Revolution of 1848
The red glare of revolution came much sooner than
either Marx or Engels had anticipated. In February,
1848, while the ink on the Communist Manifesto was
still drying, the revolutionary spirit of the French
proletariat united with the resentment of the
bourgeoisie against Louis Philippe and a violent
uprising ensued which drove the Emperor from the
country. Immediately afterwards a provisional
government was set up which included members of
the Communist League, who promptly summoned
Marx to Paris. Marx was flushed with excitement when
he arrived at the French capitol armed with full
authority from the Communist League headquarters
to set up the international headquarters in Paris and
to engineer the revolutions in other countries from
Marx learned that the intoxicating success of the
uprising in France had induced the radical element in
the provisional government to send "legions" into
surrounding countries. Their purpose was to launch an
uprising in each country and build the revolution into
one magnificent conflagration. Although this was
precisely what Marx had been advocating for several
years, he suddenly sensed that such a campaign at
the present moment might backfire and cause them to
lose the support of the masses in those countries
where legions were sent. Nevertheless, the plan was
adopted and the first legions were marched off to Germany. Marx soon followed and began publishing a
revolutionary periodical in his native tongue called the Rheinische Zeitung.
The revolutionary leaders soon discovered that Marx was a propaganda liability. This became painfully
evident when he was sent with other members of the Communist League to organize the workers in the Rhine Valley. Marx, when asked to address the German Democratic Congress, badly bungled this
golden opportunity. Carl Schurz says: "I was eager to
hear the words of wisdom that would, I supposed, fall
from the lips of so celebrated a man. I was greatly
disappointed. What Marx said was unquestionably weighty, logical and clear. But never have I seen any
one whose manner was more insufferably arrogant. He would not give me a moment's consideration to
any opinion that differed from his own. He treated with
open contempt everyone who contradicted him....
Those whose feelings he had wounded by his
offensive manner were inclined to vote in favor of
everything which ran counter to his wishes ... far from
winning new adherents, he repelled many who might
have been inclined to support him."5
From the beginning the revolution in Germany had
been anemic and by May 16, 1849, it had reached a
state of inglorious collapse. Marx was given twentyfour hours to quit the country. He stayed just long
enough to borrow funds and print the last edition of his
paper in red ink and then hastened away to find
refuge in France.
But France was no refuge. Marx arrived in Paris
penniless and exhausted, only to find that the Communist influence in the new Republic had wilted
and died. The National Assembly was in the hands of
a monarchial majority.
As soon as possible he fled from France, leaving his
family to follow later because he was destitute of
funds. He decided to make his permanent exile in
The End of the Communist League
Although Marx had to cram his family into a cheap,
one-room apartment in slums of London, he felt
sufficiently satisfied with their well-being to
immediately concentrate his attention once again on
the task of reviving the fires of the revolution. In spite
of this spirit of dedication, however, Marx's effort to
lead out did more harm than good. His agitating spirit
always seemed to create splinters and quarrels in the
ranks of his confederates and before long he had
practically cut himself off from his former associates.
The Central Committee was taken out from under his
influence and transferred to Cologne. There it
remained until 1852 when all Communist leaders in Germany were arrested and sentenced to heavy
prison terms for revolutionary activity. Marx did
everything in his power to save his estranged
comrades. He gathered documents, recruited witnesses and proposed various legal arguments
which he thought might help, but in spite of all this
yeoman service the verdicts of "guilty" pulled out of
active revolutionary service every one of the party
leaders then on trial. This sounded the death knell for
the Communist League.
The Family of Karl Marx
From this time on the Marx family lived in London in
the most extreme poverty. A peculiar combination of
emotions was expressed by Marx in his
correspondence during this period. On the one hand
he expressed soulful concern for the welfare of his wife and children. He confessed in a letter to Engels
that the "nocturnal tears and lamentations" of his wife were almost beyond endurance. Then, in the same
letter he blithely went about explaining how he was
spending his whole time studying history, politics,
economics and social problems so as to figure out
the answers for all the problems of the world.
In 1852 his little daughter, Francisca, died. Two years
later marked the passing of his young son, Edgar,
and two years after that a baby died at birth.
A few paragraphs from a letter written by Mrs. Marx
indicates the amazing loyalty of this woman who saw
her half-fed children dying around her while their father
spent days and nights in the British Museum library.
"Let me describe only one day of this life, as it actually was.... Since wet-nurses are exceedingly expensive
here, I made up my mind, despite terrible pains in the
breasts and the back, to nurse the baby myself. But
the poor little angel drank in so much sorrow with the milk that he was continually fretting, in violent pain day
and night. Since he has been in the world, he has not
slept a single night through, at most two or three
hours. Of late, there have been violent spasms, so
that the child is continually betwixt life and death. When thus afflicted, he sucked so vigorously that my
nipple became sore, and bled; often the blood
streamed into his little mouth. One day I was sitting
like this when our landlady suddenly appeared....
Since we could not pay this sum (of five pounds)
instantly, two brokers came into the house, and took
possession of all my belongings -- bedding, clothes,
everything, even the baby's cradle and the little girls'
toys, so that the children wept bitterly. They threatened
to take everything away in two hours. (Fortunately they
did not.) If this had happened I should have had to lie
on the floor with my freezing children beside me....
"Next day we had to leave. It was cold and rainy. My
husband tried to find lodging, but as soon as he said
he had four children no one would take us. At length a
friend helped us. We paid what was owed, and I
quickly sold all my beds and bedding in order to settle
accounts with the chemist, the baker, and the milkman."6
Thus the years passed. Literally hundreds of letters were exchanged between Engels and Marx and
nearly all of them refer in one place or another to money. Engels' letters characteristically contain this
phrase: "Enclosed is a post office order for five
pounds," while Marx's epistles are shot through with
exasperated passages such as: "My mother has
positively assured me that she will protest any bill
drawn on her." "For ten days we have been without a
soul in the house."
"You will agree that I am dipped up to my ears in
petty-bourgeois pickle."
At one point in this bitter existence there seemed to
be a sudden ray of hope. During a particularly
desperate period when Engels could give no relief, Marx made a trip to Holland where a prosperous
uncle generously handed him one hundred and sixty
pounds. This was enough to put Marx on his financial
feet, pay off his debts and give him a new start. But with money in his pocket, Marx decided to take a tour
of Germany. He visited his mother in Treves,
preceded to Berlin, undertook a number of drinking
excursions with his old friends, had himself
photographed and generally played the role of a
gentleman of leisure. Two months later he returned
home. Frau Marx welcomed her tourist husband
thinking that now bills could be paid, clothing and
furniture could be purchased and better rooms rented.
She was horrified to learn that practically nothing
remained of the hundred and sixty pounds.
The Founding of the First International
In 1862 a great international exhibition was held in
London, to proudly parade the industrial
achievements of nineteenth century capitalism. The
promoters of the exhibition were desirous of creating
an atmosphere of international good will and therefore
invited all countries to not only submit displays but
also to send representatives of their workers to
exchange ideas and good will with the workers of
other countries who would be in attendance.
The British labor leaders, who had been gaining
strength since 1860, considered this an excellent time
to set up an international workers' organization. They
therefore took, every opportunity to make firm friends with labor leaders from Italy, Germany, France,
Poland and Holland. In due time they were able to
establish a permanent "International" with
headquarters in London. One of the leaders of this movement was a tailor named Eccarius who had
formerly been a right hand man to Marx during the
days of the Communist League. As soon as the new movement began to catch on, Marx was invited by
Eccarius to participate.
Immediately Marx began to assert himself -- but within
bounds. This was the lesson he had partially learned
from the failure of the Communist League. The new
organization was called the International
Workingmen's Association and is frequently referred
to as the First International. As long as Marx
restrained himself he was able to exercise
considerable influence among the labor leaders from
the various countries. By careful maneuvering behind
the scenes he was able to get nearly all of his ideas
adopted in preference to weaker, more peaceful
programs suggested by "social-minded reformers."
But all of this seemed mealy-mouthed and unnatural
to Marx. He admitted to Engels he had been forced to make compromises in order to keep peace:
"My proposals were all adopted by the subcommittee. Only one thing, I had to pledge myself to
insert in the preamble to the rules two phrases about
'duty' and 'right'; also about truth, morality and justicebut they are all so placed that they cannot do any
harm.... It will be some time before the reawakened movement will permit the old boldness of speech. We must be strong in the substance, but moderate in the
In spite of this determination to be "moderate,"
however, it was not long before the true feeling of
Marx rumbled to the surface. He was concerned
about two things: first, the need to create a hard core
of disciplined revolutionists who could inflame the workers of the major industries in all countries with a will to act, and secondly, the need to eliminate any who might threaten Marx's leadership in this new movement. What Marx was contemplating was a party
The first to feel the force of the new campaign was the German labor leader, Herr von Schweitzer. All
students of Marx and Engels seem to agree that both
of them were completely without mercy when it came
to dealing with a comrade who was marked for party
liquidation. The broadside of propaganda which they
launched against Schweitzer alleged that he was working for Bismarck, the Iron Man of Germany.
Although this was pure fabrication, nothing would
have been more devastating to Schweitzer's
reputation. Even today some historians use Marx's
charges as a basis for the claim that Schweitzer was
a traitor to the cause of labor.
Another party pillar to fall under the purge was Mikhail
Bakunin, the first Russian to become interested in
revolutionary activities. He escaped from a Russian
prison and had taken up residence in Geneva.
Bakunin became so enthusiastic in advocating Marx's
principles that certain elements of the labor movement began gravitating toward his leadership.
This was fatal. Marx immediately set out to destroy
him. The technique was the same as that used
against Schweitzer except that Marx and Engels
charged Bakunin with being an agent of the Russian Czar. This had a ruinous effect for awhile. Then they
spread a charge which later proved to be completely
false -- that Bakunin had embezzled 25,000 francs.
Finally, to administer the coup de grace, Marx
succeeded in getting the International to oust Bakunin
from the Association. By this act Marx secretly felt he
had destroyed the last man who might seriously
threaten his leadership. What Marx did not know was
the fact that in spite of this abuse, Bakunin would
remain loyal to Marx's precepts, even translate Marx's
books into Russian and thereby plant seeds which would ultimately bring the first nation in the modern world under a Communist dictatorship.
However, Mark's anxiety to purge the International of
all his personal enemies created such violent
suspicion, distrust and party dissension that it brought
about the organization's total destruction. In fact, the
end of the First International came close on the heels
of Bakunin's expulsion. The trade unions in England
began to abandon the cause of international
revolution and the workers' groups on the Continent
began ignoring the mandates of the Association.
Finally, on September 8, 1873, the last congress of
the International Workingmen's Association was held
at Geneva and Marx found that the thirteen delegates who finally agreed to attend had to be practically "dug
up out of the ground." For all practical intents and
purpose, the First International was dead.
Marx Writes a Book to Change the
Much of Marx's motivation in trying to make the
International Workingmen's Association a great world movement was his desire to put into practice the very
theories he was struggling to put down on paper. For
several years he had pampered his two pet projects --
the International and his "book." Both projects drained
him of his normal physical strength. This permitted an
old liver ailment to flare up again and before long he was suffering from a rash of boils which threatened to
cover his entire body. Ill health was to plague him the
remainder of his days. In a letter to Engels he poured
out his complaints against the pain and
disappointment he was suffering:
"To my extreme disgust, after being unable to sleep
all night I discovered two more first-class boils on my
chest." Later he wrote, "I am working now like a
drayhorse, seeing that I must make the best use of all
the time available for work, and the carbuncles are
still there, though they are now giving me only local
trouble, and are not interfering with my brain." After a
particularly severe attack he wrote: "This time it was
really serious -- the family did not know how serious. If
it recurs three or four times more, it will be all up with me. I have wasted amazingly, and am still damnably weak, not in the head, but in the trunk and limbs....
There is no question of being able to sit up, but, while
lying, I have been able, at intervals, to keep digging
away at my work."8
The "work" to which Marx refers was the research and
preparation of the first volume of Capital. Marx was
convinced that a revolution would never succeed
unless the working masses had a revolutionary
philosophy of history, economics and social progress.
He wrote Capital in order to show why the violent
overthrow of the present order was not only justified
but inescapable. Elsewhere, we shall examine the
theories of Marx, but at this point it is sufficient to
point out that Marx looked upon the writing of this
book as an unpleasant mission which had to be
completed before international communism could
germinate and flourish.
During 1865, when Marx was striving to prepare a
final copy of his first volume for the printer, he told
Engels he wanted to "finish it off quickly, for the thing
has become a perfect nightmare to me." He
occasionally enjoyed periods of respite from his
illness and finally wrote to Engels: "As regards the
damned book, this is how the matter stands. It was
finished in the end of December." Engels assured
Marx that the pain and suspense of getting the book
completed were as great a trial to him as they were to Marx. He wrote: "The day the manuscript goes to
press, I shall get gloriously drunk!"
It was not until March, 1867, that all the revisions were
finally completed and Marx set out for Germany to
have the book published in his native tongue. In a
short time it began to be distributed.
But when Capital appeared in the book stalls it was
far from the literary triumph which Marx and Engels
had both expected. Its line of reasoning was entirely
too finely drawn for the working masses and far from
persuasive among intellectual reformers. It remained
for the intellectuals of another generation to make Capital the principal excuse for their attack on the
existing order of things.
The Closing Years
By 1875 Marx had little satisfaction to draw from his
life of struggle. The International had disintegrated
around him and the book which was written to justify
his policies was gathering dust in the bookstores
across the Continent. Marx continued writing two more volumes but the flame was going out in him.
After Marx's death, it would remain the task of Engels
to publish the second volume in 1885 and the third
volume in 1894.
The closing years for Karl Marx were sterile, lonely
ones. In abject defeat he turned to the bosom of his
family. Always there would be Jenny to give comfort
and consolation. But the Marx children bore the scars
of their upbringing. When Marx interfered with the
courtship of his daughter, Eleanor, she entered a freelove union with Edward Aveling and, following a most wretched existence with him, committed suicide.
Another daughter, Laura, married a renegade doctor
and later died with him in a suicide pact.
By 1878 Marx had abandoned practically every
aspect of his work. His rock-ribbed self confidence
had been shattered. Labor leaders ignored him,
reformers ridiculed him. His words carried little weight, either at home or abroad.
Thus, his morale was at the breaking point when the
toll of time struck down his only kindred spirit outside
of Engels -- Frau Marx. This gentle, aristocratic and
long-suffering companion died of cancer December
2, 1881. Thirteen months later, Marx's favorite
daughter, Jenny, also suddenly died. Thereafter,
Engels noted that Marx, the man, was as well as
dead. He survived his daughter, Jenny, by only two
brief months. On March 14, 1883, at 2:45 in the
afternoon, he died while sitting alone in his chair.
Three days later six or seven persons followed the
casket of Karl Marx to Highgate cemetery in London
and there his one abiding friend, Friedrich Engels,
read a funeral oration. It was the kind of oration Marx would liked to have heard. It granted him in death what Marx was never granted in life unequivocal
tribute of glowing praise.
Thus ended the dynamic, turbulent and restless
career of Karl Marx. By all standards it was a pathetic
life, filled with burning ambition, constant frustration
and continuous failure. Whether seen from the
viewpoint of friend or foe, perhaps the real tragedy of
Marx's life can be found in the fact that for some
amazing reason he almost instinctively planted the
seeds of self-destruction in any project he promoted.
One cannot pore over the almost endless products of
his pen -- the weighty, complex books or the reams of
sniping, feverish correspondence without feeling that
Karl Marx projected into Communism the very
essence of his own nature. His resentment of political
authority expressed itself in a ringing cry for universal
revolution. His refusal or inability to compete in a
capitalistic economy wrung from him a vitriolic
denunciation of that economy and a prophecy that its
destruction was inexorably decreed. His deep sense
of insecurity pushed him to create out of his own
imagination a device for interpreting history which made progress inescapable and a Communist millennium unavoidable. His personal attitude toward
religion, morals and competition in everyday
existence led him to long for an age when men would
have no religion, morals or competition in everyday
existence. He wanted to live in a classless, stateless,
noncompetitive society where there would be such
lavish production of everything that men, by simply
producing according to their apparent ability, would
automatically receive a superabundance of all
material needs.
Another characteristic of Marx which he shared with
his intellectual off-spring -- Communism -- is that both must be viewed from a distance to be admired, even
by friends. It is for this reason that biographers often
treat Marx as though he were two persons. From a
distance they might feel to admire his theories but
upon close contact Marx becomes a different entity.
Thus, Bakunin could call Marx the "supreme
economic and socialist genius of our day" and then
give the following evaluation of Marx, the man: "Marx
is egotistical to the pitch of insanity....
"Marx loved his own person much more than he loved
his friends and apostles, and no friendship could hold water against the slightest wound to his vanity.... Marx will never forgive a slight to his person. You must worship him, make an idol of him, if he is to love you
in return; you must at least fear him if he is to tolerate
you. He likes to surround himself with pygmies, with
lackeys and flatterers. All the same, there are some
remarkable men among his intimates. In general,
however, one may say that in the circle of Marx's
intimates there is very little brotherly frankness, but a
great deal of machination and diplomacy. There is a
sort of tacit struggle and a compromise between the
self-loves of the various persons concerned; and where vanity is at work there is no longer place for
brotherly feeling. Every one is on his guard, is afraid
of being sacrificed, of being annihilated. Marx's circle
is a sort of mutual admiration society. Marx is the
chief distributor of honours, but is also the invariably
perfidious and malicious, the never frank and open,
inciter to the persecution of those whom he suspects,
or who had the misfortune of failing to show all the
veneration he expects. As soon as he has ordered a
persecution there is no limit to the baseness and
infamy of the method."
The acid of boiling intolerance which Marx frequently
poured down on the heads of his followers may be
partially explained by his own complete certainty that
the theories he had concocted were infallible gems of
cosmic truth. In his heyday of abounding strength Marx
often bowled over his opposition with mountain- moving declarations of supreme self-confidence:
"Historical evolution is on your side," he shouted to
his followers. "Capitalism, brought into being by the
laws of historical evolution, will be destroyed by the
inexorable working of these same laws. The
bourgeoisie, the business manager of the capitalist
system, appeared on the stage of history with that
system, and must make its exit when that system
walks off the stage. You, proletarians, keep capitalism
going by your labour, and maintain the whole of
bourgeois society by the fruits of your industry. But
socialism will be a necessary organic outcome of
capitalism, the essence of the latter being implied in
the essence of the former. With the end of capitalism,
comes the beginning of socialism as a logical
consequence. You proletarians, as a class, being the
incorporators of the forces and tendencies which will
do away with capitalism, must necessarily make an
end of the bourgeoisie. You merely need, as a class,
to fulfill the evolution which your mission calls on you
to fulfill. All you need is to will! History makes this as
easy as possible for you. You need not hatch out any
new ideas, make any plans, discover a future State.
You need not 'dogmatically anticipate the world.' You
need merely put your hands to the task which is
awaiting you. The means by which you will do it are to
be found in the unceasing, purposive, consistent
fighting of the class struggle, whose crown will be the
victory of the social revolution."
When Marx died there was little to suggest to him in
his closing hours that he yet would be remembered
for the thing he had striven unsuccessfully to produce -
- a genuine revolution. While Western Europe wrote
off revolutionary violence as a mere phase of
Nineteenth Century social reform, a great slumbering
giant in Eastern Europe was about to be rudely
awakened by Marx's revolutionary call to arms. This,
of course, was Russia.
Before studying the revolution in Russia, we must turn
to a brief review of the theories which Karl Marx and
Friedrich Engels left as a legacy to the disciples of
World Communism. In these theories may be found
the explanation for many things in the Russian Revolution and in subsequent Communist activities which otherwise might be difficult or impossible to
1. Wilson, Edmund, To The Finland Station, pp. 217-218.
2.Ruhle,Otto, Karl Marx, pp. 209-308.
3. Wilson, Edmund, To The Finland Station, p. 115.
3. Wilson, Edmund, To The Finland Station, p. 115.
4.Ruhle,Otto, Karl Marx, pp. 383-384.
5.Ruhle,Otto, Karl Marx, pp. 157-158.
6.Ruhle,Otto, Karl Marx, pp. 202-204.
7.Ruhle,Otto, Karl Marx, pp. 248-249.
8.Ruhle,Otto, Karl Marx, pp. 262.
Chapter Two
The Appeal of Communism
"How could a great scientist or anyone with so much
education fall for Communism?" During the past 20
years this question has echoed around the land with
each fresh exposure of Red espionage. It has been
amazing to many people to discover that Communism
appeals to certain educated individuals because it
includes an intriguing "philosophy of nature." In this
philosophy Communism does seem to explain the
origin and development of everything in existence --
life, planets, galaxies, evolution, and even human
intelligence. To those who have not previously delved
into philosophy these concepts sometimes prove
infatuating and persuasive. Therefore, in this chapter we shall deal with them.
Perhaps this material may prove to be difficult
reading. However, the theories of Communism will be
far easier to digest in this brief, concentrated form
than they would be if the student attempted to spend
several months digging them out of far-flung, technical
treatises in Communist literature.
Every student should pursue his studies of Marxism
until he has discovered the answers to such questions
as these:
What is the Communist "law of opposites"? What is
the "law of negation"? Explain the "law of
How does the Communist philosopher explain the
origin of life? Does the universe have a designer or a
What is meant by the Communist concept that
everything is the result of accumulated accident?
Does Communism have a god? What did Feuerbach
say man's god really is? Who did Marx say must
remake the world? How did Marx and Engels justify
the use of violence?
What is the basic fallacy in the Communist "law of
opposites"? What is the inherent fallacy in the "law of
negation"? What is the weakness in the "law of
The Case for Communism
The influence of Marx and Engels has continued in the
earth, not simply because they were against so many
things but primarily because they stood for something.
In a word, they promised to satisfy humanity's two
greatest needs: the need for universal peace and the
need for universal prosperity.
The very fact that Communism offered a millennium
for all the distracted, dissatisfied and unhappy people
in the world assured it a hearing, not merely by underprivileged workers, but by many of the aristocracy, many of the wealthy, and many of the political and
economic theorists.
When these people began hearing how Marx and
Engels were going to achieve universal peace and
universal prosperity they began dividing into clear-cut
camps for or against Communism. One group
insisted that Communism was worth a try in spite of
the blood bath it would bring to humanity (after all, what is one more war if it is the gateway to permanent
peace?). The other camp insisted that Communism is
a complete repudiation of every decent human
attribute. It would summarily forfeit all the gains which men have made through centuries of struggle.
What, then, is the case for Communism?
In this chapter we shall attempt to reduce Communist
thought to its basic formula. The student will become
immediately aware that Marx and Engels dealt with much more than violent revolution and Communist
economics. In fact, they developed a framework of
ideas designed to explain everything in existence.
This philosophy is the pride and joy of every modern Communist intellectual and therefore deserves careful
The Communist Philosophy of
The Communist Philosophy of
To begin with, the basic Communist idea is that
everything in existence can be explained by one thing
-- matter. Beyond matter there is nothing. Matter is the
total explanation for atoms, solar systems, plants,
animals, man, psychic consciousness, human
intelligence and all other aspects of life. Communist
philosophy maintains that if science can get to know
all there is to know about matter, we will then know all
there is to know about everything.1 Communism has
therefore assigned to science the monumental task of making man totally omniscient -- of knowing all truth --
but has limited the investigation to one reality -- matter. Matter is conclusively accepted as the
beginning and the end of all reality.
Communist philosophy then sets forth to answer three
questions: What is the origin of energy or motion in
What causes galaxies, solar systems, planets,
animals and all kingdoms of nature to constantly
increase their numerical quantity?
What is the origin of life, the origin of species and the
origin of consciousness and mind?
Marx and Engels answered all of these questions with
their three laws of matter:
The Lawof Opposites -- Marx and Engels started with
the observation that everything in existence is a
combination or unity of opposites.2 Electricity is
characterized by a positive and negative charge.
Atoms consist of protons and electrons which are
unified but contradictory forces. Each organic body
has qualities of attraction and repulsion. Even human
beings find through introspection that they are a unity
of opposite qualities -- selfishness and altruism,
courage and cowardice, social traits and anti-social
traits, humbleness and pride, masculinity and
femininity. The Communist conclusion is that
everything in existence "contains two mutually
incompatible and exclusive but nevertheless equally
essential and indispensable parts or aspects."3
Now the Communist concept is that this unity of
opposites in nature is the thing which makes each
entity auto-dynamic and provides the constant motivation for movement and change. This idea was
borrowed from Georg Wilhelm Hegel (1770-1831) who said: "Contradiction (in nature) is the root of all motion and of all life."4
This, then, introduces us to the first basic observation
of Communist dialectics. The word "dialectics" has a
very special meaning to Communists. It represents
the idea of conflict in nature. The beginning student of
Communist philosophy can better understand the meaning of dialectics if he substitutes the word
"conflict" each time "dialectics" appears.
So at this point the student is expected to understand
that each thing in the universe is in a state of motion
because it is a parcel made up of opposite forces which are struggling within it. This brings us to the
second law of matter.
The Law of Negation -- Having accounted for the
origin of motion and energy in the universe, the Communist writers then set about to account for the
tendency in nature to constantly increase the
numerical quantity of all things. They decided that
each entity tends to negate itself in order to reproduce
itself in greater quantity. Engels cited the case of the
barley seed which, in its natural state, germinates and
out of its own death or negation produces a plant. The
plant in turn grows to maturity and is itself negated
after bearing many barley seeds. Thus, all nature is
constantly expanding through dying. The elements of
opposition which produce conflict in each thing and
give it motion also tend to negate the thing itself; but
out of this dynamic process of dying the energy is
released to expand and produce many more entities
of the same kind.5
Having accounted for numerical increase in the
universe, the Communist philosophers then set about
to account for all the different creations in nature.
The Lawof Transformation -- This law states that a
continuous quantitative development by a particular
class often results in a "leap" in nature whereby a
completely new form or entity is produced.6 Consider,
for example, the case of the paraffin hydrocarbons:
"Chemistry testifies to the fact that methane is
composed of one atom of carbon and four atoms of
hydrogen. Now, if we add to methane another atom of
carbon and two more atoms of hydrogen (a mere
quantitative increase since these are the elements
already composing the methane) we get an entirely
new chemical substance called ethane. If we add
another atom of carbon and two more atoms of
hydrogen to the ethane, we get propane, an entirely
different chemical substance. Another quantitative
addition of an atom of carbon and two atoms of
hydrogen results in a fourth chemical substance,
butane. And still another quantitative addition of an
atom of carbon and two more atoms of hydrogen
results in a fifth chemical substance, pentane."7
The Marxist philosophers immediately concluded that
this is the clue to the "Creative Power" in nature. Matter is not only auto-dynamic and inclined to
increase itself numerically, but through quantitative
accumulations it is also inherently capable of "leaps"
to new forms and new levels of reality.
Marx and Engels now felt they had not only found an
explanation for the "origin of species," but that they
had discovered a thrilling explanation for the greatest mystery of all: What is Life?
The Origin of Life, Consciousness
The Origin of Life, Consciousness
and Mind
On the basis of this principle the Communist
philosophers decided that the phenomenon of life was the product of one of these leaps. Engels stated
that the complex chemical structure of matter evolved
until albuminous substance was formed, and from this
albuminous substance life emerged. In fact, he
insisted that just as you cannot have matter without motion, so also you cannot have albumin without life. It
is an inherent characteristic of albumin -- a higher
form of motion in nature.8
Engels also suggested that as soon as life emerged
spontaneously from albuminous substance, it was
bound to increase in complexity. Dialectical
Materialism is an evolutionary philosophy. However,
the Communist does not believe that new forms in
nature are the result of gradual change but that
quantitative multiplication builds up the momentum for
a "leap" in nature which produces a change or a new
The Communist believes that incidental to one of
these leaps, the phenomenon of consciousness
emerged. The creature became aware of the forces which were playing upon it. Then at an even higher
level another form of life appeared with the emerging
capacity to work with these impressions -- to arrange
them in associations -- and thus mind emerged as an
intelligent, self-knowing, self-determining quality in
matter. However, matter is primary, mind is
secondary. Where there is no matter there is no mind
-- therefore, there can be no soul, no immortality, no God.
With the setting down of the Law of Transformation
the Communist philosophy of nature became
complete. The Dialectical Materialists felt that a great
intellectual contribution had been made to man's
understanding of the universe. Through these laws
they decided they had shown:
1. Matter is a unity of opposites which creates a
conflict that makes it auto-dynamic and selfenergizing; therefore matter does not need an outside
source of power for its manifestation of motion;
2. Through its pattern of constant negation or dying,
nature tends to multiply itself and fill the universe with
an orderly development or increase without requiring
any guiding intelligence; and
3. Through the Law of Transformation matter is
capable of producing new forms without the need of
any creative or directing power outside of itself.
Engels boasted that by discovery of these laws "the
last vestige of a Creator external to the world is
From this brief summary, it will be seen that the Communist intellectual believes that everything in
existence came about as a result of ceaseless motion
among the forces of nature. Everything is a product of
accumulated accident. There is no design. There is
no law. There is no God. There is only matter and
force in nature.
As for man, the Communist philosopher teaches that
he is a graduate animal -- an accident of nature like
all other forms of life. Nevertheless, man is supposed
to have the accidental good fortune to possess the
highest intelligence in existence. This is said to make
him the real god of the universe. This is precisely what
Ludwig Feuerbach had in mind when he said: "The
turning point of history will be the moment man
becomes aware that the only God of man is man
This will account for the almost passionate zeal of
Communist leaders to destroy all forms of religion
and the worship of God. Nikolai Lenin declared: "We must combat religion -- this is the ABC of materialism, and consequently of Marxism." When
Karl Marx was asked what his objective in life was, he
said, "To dethrone God and destroy capitalism!" However, it is interesting to observe that having
denounced God, the scriptures, morals, immortality,
eternal judgment, the existence of the spirit and the
sanctity of individual human life, the dialectical materialists turned to the worship of themselves.
They decided that man is the epitome of perfection
among nature's achievements and therefore the
center of the universe.
But if man is supposed to have the highest
intelligence in existence then it becomes his manifest
duty to remake the world. Naturally, Marx believed this
task was the inescapable responsibility of the Communist leaders since they are the only ones who
have a truly scientific understanding of social and
economic progress. Marx and Engels accepted the
fact that the remaking of the world will have to be a
cruel and ruthless task and that it will involve the
destruction of all who stand in the way. This is
necessary, they said, in order to permit the Communist leadership to wipe out the social and
economic sins of human imperfection in one clean
sweep and then gradually introduce a society of
perfect harmony which will allow all humanity to live
scientifically, securely and happily during all future
However, before striking out on such a bold course,
the founders of Communism realized they would have
to develop a whole new approach to morals and
ethics for their followers. Lenin summarized it as
follows: "We say that our morality is wholly
subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of
the proletariat."10
In other words, whatever tends to
bring about the Communist concept of material
betterment is morally good, and whatever does not is morally bad. This concept is simply intended to say
that "the end justifies the means." It is not wrong to
cheat, lie, violate oaths or even destroy human life if it
is for a good cause. This code of no morals accounts
for the amoral behavior on the part of Communists which is frequently incomprehensible to non- Communists.
A Brief Critique of the Communist
Philosophy of Nature
From experience it has been observed that a newly
converted Communist frequently acquires a feeling of
omniscient superiority over his unconverted fellow men. He feels that at last the universe is laid out
before him in a simple, comprehensible manner. If he
has never wrestled with philosophical problems
before he is likely to be overwhelmed by the
infatuating possibility that through Dialectical
Materialism man has finally solved all of the basic
problems necessary to understand the universe. In
this state of mind the student will often drop his
attitude of critical inquiry. He will invite indoctrination
in heavy doses because of his complete assurance
that he has at last discovered Truth in its ultimate
There are many things, however, which the alert
student will immediately recognize as fallacies in the Communist philosophy of nature. Take, for example,
the Law of Opposites. This law proclaims that all matter is a unity of opposites, and that out of the
opposition manifested by these contradictory
elements, energy is derived. This is supposed to
explain the origin of motion. But two contradictory
elements would never come together in the first place
elements would never come together in the first place
unless they already had energy in themselves. Contradictory forces in nature are found to have
energy independent of each other. Bringing them
together simply unifies energy or motion already in
existence. Therefore, as philosophical scholars have
pointed out, the Communist Law of Opposites does
not explain motion; it presupposes it! 11
As one author facetiously put it: "Two inert elements
could no more produce a conflict and create motion
than a thousand dead Capitalists and a million dead
Communists could produce a class war."
It will be recalled that the second law of matter
according to the Communists is the Law of Negation.
This is the principle that the contradictory forces in an
entity tend toward its own negation but, through the
process of dying, these forces of motion are released
into an even more extended development. Thus, a
barley seed germinates and is negated to produce a
plant which, in turn, is negated to produce a quantity
of new seeds. In this manner the numerical increase
in nature is accounted for.
But as Dr. McFadden points out in The Philosophy of
Communism, the Law of Negation explains nothing. It merely describes a phenomenon in nature. True, the
plan of nature is to reproduce itself in ever-expanding
quantities, but the demise or negation of a parent is
not necessarily related in any way to its power to
reproduce itself. The growth and demise of any being
goes forward whether it reproduces itself or not, and
some beings reproduce over and over again before
any negation takes place.
Furthermore, the first and second laws of matter leave
the Communist philosopher in the position of arguing
that motion and life are not only auto-dynamic, selfcreating and spontaneous but that the development of
a barley seed into a plant and the reproduction of many barley seeds by the plant is the result of
accumulated accident. Engels deplored the
possibility of being left in this position and frankly
agreed that there is "law, order, causality and
necessity in nature."12 Nevertheless, he would not
admit the possibility of intelligent design in nature but
said the barley seed produces a plant and the plant
produces more barley seeds because the nature of
the thing demands it.13 Why does the thing demand
it? No matter how the point is obscured by
philosophical terminology, the student will have little
difficulty detecting that Engels is arguing that blind,
uncomprehending forces of mechanical motion in
nature are capable of ordering themselves to produce
intricate things which are designed in advance to
achieve a pre-determined end. What, for example, is
there about a barley seed which would demand that it
negate itself and produce a plant? And by what rule of
reason can the Dialectical Materialist account for the
fact that a germinated barley seed always produces a
certain kind of plant and nothing else?
The authorities point out that Engels developed a
pattern of thought that led to conclusions which even
he recognized could not be demonstrated in nature
and therefore he retreated behind obscure
generalities which the student finds nebulous and
The third law -- the Law of Transformation -- also
describes a phenomenon in nature but fails to
account for it. It confirms that in nature we discover widely separated species with distinguishing qualities
and characteristics. But while some of these "leaps"
can be produced with certain inorganic substances
simply by quantitative accumulation (as in the paraffin
hydrocarbons) it does not explain how the new
qualities are produced. Furthermore, when this same
principle is used to explain life as spontaneously
emerging in albuminous substances, the Communist
philosopher is defiantly flying in the face of all
scientific experience. The universal demonstration of
nature is the fact that only life begets life. It has not
been possible to produce life synthetically or
spontaneously either in the laboratory or in nature.
These basic weaknesses in Communist philosophy were the factors which ultimately convinced Whittaker Chambers (an American espionage agent for the Communists) that he had been deceived. In spite of
the heavy terminology of Communist dialectics he
finally became convinced that blind,
uncomprehending material forces in nature could
never produce -- regardless of the time allowed -- the
highly complex things which man finds all around him.
As students of the problem have often pointed out:
"The odds against nature, of itself happening to
produce an organ of such complexity as the eye, with
its thousands of infinitesimal parts combined in
exactly the manner required for vision, are mathematically almost incalculable. But the eye only
one of the many complex parts of the human body.
The chances against nature producing precisely that material organization found in each of the other
organs and glands are equally great. But this is not all.
For, in man, all of these organs and glands are
organized into a perfect functional unit. And man is
only one of the countless species of nature, inanimate
and animate, each one of which possesses a similar marvelous organization of its most minute parts."
It was this kind of thinking which finally awakened
Whittaker Chambers to the realization that the
realities around him were much more complex and
profound than the Communist explanation of "motion
in matter" could begin to satisfy or account for. Thus,
he began his retreat from the philosophy of
The great tragedy of Communism, however, is the
fact that its founders did not stop at the so-called
"harmless speculation" of Dialectical Materialism.
They determined to permeate every aspect of human
existence with the principles which they felt they had
discovered. Therefore, they promoted a new
approach to history, economics, politics, ethics,
social planning and even science. In the Communist
Manifesto Marx and Engels admitted that critics of
Communism could say that it "abolishes eternal
truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead
of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts
in contradiction to all past historical experience."14
Because more than a third of the earth's population is
now being subjected to the terrifying "plan of action" which the Communist founders believed should be
forced upon all mankind for their ultimate good, we will try to discover how Communism proposes to
solve the world's problems.
1. Engels, Friedrich, Ludwig Feuerbach, International Publishers,NewYork, 1934, p. 31.
2. Conze, E., Dialectical Materialism, London, N.C.L.C Society,
1936, p. 35.
3. Conze, E., Dialectical Materialism, pp. 51-52; See also Engels, Friedrich, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, pp. 47-
4.Quoted byV. Adoratsky,Dialectical Materialism, pp. 26-27.
5. Engels Friedrich Anti-Duhring, p. 138.
6. Engels, Friedrich, Anti-Duhring, p. 145.
7. McFadden, Charles J., The Philosophy of Communism, p.
50; see also C. Porter, The Carbon Compounds, p. 10.
8. Engels, Friedrich, Anti-Duhring, pp. 78, 85.
9. Engels, Friedrich, Anti-Duhring, p. 18.
10. Lenin, V. I.,Religion, p. 47.
11. For an extended discussion of this problem see The Philosophy of Communism, by Dr. Charles McFadden, pp.
12. Quoted byV. I. Lenin in Materialism and Empiro-Criticism,
p. 125.
13. Engels, Friedrich, Anti-Duhring, p. 79.
14. Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto, Authorized English Translation, p. 40.


Chapter Three
The Communist Approach to the
Solution of World Problems
Now we come to the part of Communism with which more people are familiar. At least, more people have
heard about the Communist plan of action than the Communist philosophy of nature which we have just
covered. Here are some questions that every student
of Communism should be able to answer concerning
the Marxist solution to world problems:
Why did Marx and Engels think they had discovered
an inexorable law in history which made it possible for
them to predict the course of future human
What is "Economic Determinism"? What is the
"Activist Theory"? According to Marx and Engels is
there any such thing as "free will"? Can men choose
the kind of society in which they will live or are they
victims of material forces which surround them?
How did Marx and Engels explain human progress as
a product of class struggle?
What is the Communist theory of private property?
Why is it considered a curse?
How did Marx and Engels account for the origin of the
State? Why did they think it was "unnatural"?
How did they account for the origin of religion, morals
and jurisprudence?
What was supposed to be accomplished during the Communist "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"?
Why do the Communists say "socialism" is only a
temporary stage of human progress?
How did they propose to develop a civilization which would consist of a classless, stateless society?
The Communist Interpretation of
Today very few people have had occasion to sit down with a professional Communist and listen to his views.
Should such an occasion arise the student would
receive the immediate impression that a Communist
has a reverential regard for the record of man's past.
This is because Marx and Engels thought their
studies of the past had led them to discover an
"inexorable law" which runs through all history like a
bright red thread. They further believed that by tracing
this thread it is possible to predict with positive
assurance the pattern of man's progress in the future.
What did Marx and Engels discover during their study
of history? First of all they decided that selfpreservation is the supreme instinct in man and
therefore his whole pattern of human conduct must
have been governed by an attempt to wrest the
necessities of life from nature. It is a dialectical
process -- man against nature. This led them to a monumental conclusion: all historical developments
are the result of "Economic Determinism" -- man's
effort to survive. They said that everything men do -- whether it is organizing a government, establishing
laws, supporting a particular moral code or practicing
religion -- is merely the result of his desire to protect whatever mode of production he is currently using to
secure the necessities of life. Furthermore, they
believed that if some revolutionary force changes the mode of production, the dominant class will
immediately set about to create a different type of
society designed to protect the new economic order.
"Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views and conception, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in
the conditions of material existence.... What else
does the history of ideas prove than that intellectual
production changes in character in proportion as material production is changed?"1
To appreciate their point of view, it is necessary to
understand Marx and Engels' mechanistic conception
of the way the human mind works. They said that after
the brain receives impressions from the outside world, it automatically moves the individual to take
action (this is their Activist Theory). They did not
believe knowledge could be acquired without motivating the owner to do something about it. For
example, when men became aware that slavery was
a satisfactory way to produce crops, construct
buildings and enjoy various kinds of services, this
knowledge moved the dominant class to create a
society which protected the interest of the slave
owners. And in modern times Marx and Engels
believed that the bourgeois or property class have
done the same thing by instinctively creating a society
to protect their capitalistic interests. As they said to
the bourgeois in the Communist Manifesto:
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of
your bourgeois production and bourgeois property,
just as your jurisprudence (system of law) is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose
essential character and direction are determined by
the economic conditions of existence of your class."2
From this it will be seen that Marx and Engels did not
believe that men could arbitrarily choose any one of
several forms of society but only that one which
promotes the prevailing mode of production. The very
nature of man's materialistic make-up requires him to
do this. "Are men free to choose this or that form of
society? By no means." 3 According to Marx the thing which we call "free will" is nothing more nor less than
an awareness of the impelling forces which move an
individual to action; in taking action he is not free to
change the course his very nature dictates.
"Communism has no idea of freedom as the
possibility of choice, of turning to right or left, but only
as the possibility of giving full play to one's energy
when one has chosen which way to turn."4
In other words, human minds receive knowledge of
existing economic circumstances and "choose" to
turn in the direction which is necessary to preserve
the current mode of production. They are then free
only in the sense that they are moved to decide that
they will expend vast quantities of energy in building a
superstructure of government, morals, laws and
religion which will perpetuate these basic economic
circumstances. At the foundation of all activities of
society lies "Economic Determinism." "The mode of
production in material life determined the general
character of the social, political and spiritual
processes of life."5
Marx and Engels now felt they had discovered
something much more vital to human welfare than
simply a philosophical explanation of history. In fact,
they believed they had identified Economic
Determinism as the basic creative force in human
progress. Having made this important discovery they
felt that if they could somehow force upon mankind the
influence of a highly perfected system of economic
production it would automatically produce a highly
perfected society which, in turn, would automatically
produce a higher type of human being. In other words,
they would reverse the Judaic-Christian approach which endeavors to improve humanity in order to
improve society. Here again they were reaffirming
their conviction that human beings are not the
creators of society but its products: "The final causes
of all social changes and political revolution are to be
sought, not in men's brains, not in man's insight into
eternal truth and justice ... but in the economics of
each particular epoch."6
Therefore, Marx and Engels advocated a change in
economic structure as the only valid way of improving
society and refining the intellectual make-up of
humanity. But how can a new, improved system of
production and distribution be introduced among men? What historical procedure has Economic Determinism unconsciously followed to bring mankind
to its present state of advancement?
Human Progress Explained in Terms
of Class Struggle
Marx and Engels answered their own question by
deciding that from earliest times the mode of
production and the means of distribution have always
produced two basic classes of people: those who
owned the means of production and thereby became
exploiters, and those who owned nothing and
therefore had to sell or trade their physical labor to
survive. The element of conflict between these two
groups was identified by Marx and Engels as the
basic force in history which has prompted the
evolution of society toward ever-ascending levels of
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the
history of class struggles. Freeman and slave,
patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and
journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed,
stood in constant opposition to one another, carried
on an uninterrupted ... fight that each time ended
either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at
large or in the common ruin of the contending
Here again Marx and Engels were applying the
principles of Dialectics. All past societies have been
a combination of opposite force or classes -- the
exploiters and the exploited. The clash between them
has always generated the dynamic force which has
propelled society into some new development. The
transition, they noted, was often accompanied by
revolution and violence.
But must the course of human events always follow
this never-ending cycle of clashes between the two
opposing classes of society? Must there always be
revolution to produce new orders which in turn are
destroyed by revolution to produce others? Marx and
Engels visualized a day when there would be unity
among men instead of opposition, peace instead of war. Such a hope, of course, violated their own theory
of dialectics which says nothing in nature can be at
rest -- everything is a unity of opposing forces.
Nevertheless, Marx and Engels reasoned that since
they had discovered the inexorable law of history with
its self-improving device of class struggle, they would
use one final, terrible class struggle for the purpose of
permanently eliminating the thing which had caused
all past conflicts in society. What is this one terrible
feature of all past societies which has caused
selfishness, jealousy, class struggle and war? Marx
and Engels thought all of these things could be traced
to one root -- private property. If they used a final
revolutionary class uprising to overthrow private
property, it would mean that class struggle would
become unnecessary because there would be
nothing to fight over!
The Communist Theory Concerning
Private Property
Why do Communists believe that private property is
the root of all evil?
Engels wrote that in primitive times he believed all
people followed the principle of common ownership of
everything except the most personal belongings such
as clothing and weapons. Then he felt that the
domestication of land and flocks resulted in certain men producing more commodities than they required
for themselves, and therefore they began exchanging
these surplus items for other commodities which they
lacked. He said these commodities used in exchange were naturally identified with the person who
possessed them and thus the concept of private
property was born.8
Engels then postulated that those who owned the land
or other means of production would obviously reap
the major profit from the economic resources of the
community and ultimately this would place them in a
position to hire other men to do their work. They would
be able to dictate wages, hours and conditions of
labor for their employees, thereby insuring their own
freedom and social status while exploiting the toiling
class. Therefore, said Engels, out of private property
blossomed class antagonism with its entourage of
camp followers: greed, pride, selfishness,
imperialism and war. He said private property also
had led to the necessity of creating the State.
The Communist Theory of the Origin
of the State
Engels decided that when the non-property class had
been exploited to the point where there was danger of
revolt, the dominant class created an organ of power
to maintain "law and order," that is, a system of laws
to protect the private property and advantages of the
exploiting class. This new order, he said, is the State.
"The state, then, is ... simply a product of society at a
certain stage of evolution. It (the creation of any kind
of government) is the confession that this society has
become hopelessly divided against itself, has
become hopelessly divided against itself, has
entangled itself in irreconcilable contradictions which
it is powerless to banish."9
Therefore the State is designed to postpone the day
of judgment. Government is the "instrument of power"
-- the unnatural appendage to society -- which is
created for the express press purpose of protecting
the privileged class and the private property it
possesses from the just demands of the exploited
class. Marx and Engels reasoned that if they
somehow could eliminate private property, it would do
away with class struggle, and then the state would no
longer be necessary and it would gradually wither
The Communist Theory of the Origin
and Economic Significance of
Marx and Engels further believed that another great
evil has grown out of private property--the exploitation
of religion, They recognized, of course, that probably
the roots of religion were established long before the
institution of private property. However, they felt that
since religion was not of divine origin it must have
grown out of the frantic efforts of early man to explain
the forces of nature and man's psychic experiences
such as dreams. When private property emerged as
the foundation of society, they believed religion was
seized upon as a device to put down the rebellion of
the exploited class.
According to Marx it was the property class who wanted their workers to be taught humility, patience
and long-suffering; to endure the wrongs heaped upon
them with the hope that justice would be meted out "in
the next life." He said religion was made to serve as
an opiate for the oppressed. The workers were told to
"judge not" but to remain passive and dutiful toward
their masters. "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed
creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, as it is
the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the
This explains the presence of vigorous anti-religious
campaigns in the Communist program: "One of the most important tasks of the Cultural Revolution
affecting the wide masses is the task of
systematically and unswervingly combating religion --
the opium of the people."11
"There can be no doubt
about the fact that the new state of the USSR is led by
the Communist Party, with a program permeated by
the spirit of militant atheism.12
"Have we suppressed
the reactionary clergy? Yes, we have. The unfortunate
thing is that it has not been completely liquidated."13
The Communist Theory of the Origin
and Economic Significance of
Up to this point Marx and Engels felt they had
established that the evil of private property is
responsible for the origin of class antagonisms, the
creation of the State and the exploitation of religion. Now they attached a similar explanation to the origin
and economic significance of morals. Engels and
Marx denied that there could be any eternal basis for
the moral standards of "right and wrong" set up in the
Judaic-Christian code. Lenin summarized their ideas when he said: "In what sense do we deny ethics, morals? In the sense in which they are preached by
the bourgeoisie, which deduces these morals from
God's commandments. Of course, we say that we do
not believe in God. We know perfectly well that the
clergy, the landlords, and the bourgeoisie all claimed
to speak in the name of God, in order to protect their
own interests as exploiters. We deny all morality
taken from super-human or non-class concepts. We
say that this is a deception, a swindle, a befogging of
the minds of the workers and peasants in the interests
of the landlords and capitalists."14
The Marxists believe that "Thou Shalt Not Steal" and
"Thou Shalt Not Covet" are examples of the dominant
class trying to impose respect for property on the
exploited masses who cannot help but covet the wealth and property of their masters. As Engels said:
"Thou shalt not steal. Does this law thereby become
an eternal moral law? By no means."15 They called
such teachings "class" morality -- a code designed to
protect the property class.
But in rejecting the Judaic-Christian code of morals,
Engels tried to represent that Communism was merely moving up to a higher level where human
conduct will be motivated exclusively by the needs of
society: "We say that our morality is wholly
subordinated to the interest of the class-struggle of
the proletariat." But in spite of this attempt to
delicately obscure the true significance of Communist moral thought, Engels could not prevent himself from
occasionally unveiling the truth of what was in his mind: "We therefore reject every attempt to impose
on us any moral dogma what-ever...."16
In other words, Communism undertakes to replace
Judaic-Christian morals with a complete absence of morals. That this was exactly what later Communists
deduced from the teachings of their leaders is
demonstrated in the words of a modern American Marxist: "With him (the Communist) the end justifies
the means. Whether his tactics be 'legal' or 'moral' or
not, does not concern him, so long as they are
effective. He knows that the laws as well as the
current code of morals are made by his mortal
enemies.... Consequently, he ignores them insofar as
he is able, and it, suits his purposes. He proposes to
develop, regardless of capitalist conceptions of
'legality,' 'fairness,' 'right,' etc., a greater power than
his capitalist enemies have...."17
So now Marx and Engels had completed their original
purposes in making an intensive study of history. They
felt they had successfully explained the origin of the
various institutions in society by showing that all of
these were the product of Economic Determinism,
and they felt they had traced to its source the cause of
strife, inequity and injustice among men -- private
property. Only one task now remained for the master
architects -- to apply this knowledge to a "plan of
action" which would permanently solve the economic,
political and social ills of all mankind.
The Communist Plan of Action
As Marx and Engels analyzed modern civilization they
concluded that capitalistic society is rapidly reaching
that point where a revolution is inevitable. This is the way they reasoned: After the overthrow of feudalism
the capitalistic society came into being. At first it
consisted primarily of individuals who owned their
own land or their own workshops. Each man did his
own work and reaped the economic benefits to which
he was entitled. Then the industrial revolution came
along and the private workshop was supplanted by
the factory. Products no longer came from the private workshop but from the factory where the united effort
of many individuals produced the commodity. Engels
said manufacturing thereby became social production
rather than private production. It was therefore wrong
for private individuals to continue owning the factory
because the factory had become a social institution. He argued that no private individual should get the
profits from something which many people were
required to produce.
"But," critics asked, "do not the workers share in the
profits of the factory through their wages?"
Marx and Engels did not believe that wages were
adequate compensation for labor performed unless
the workers received all the proceeds from the sale
of the commodity. Since the hands of the workers
produced the commodity they believed the workers
should receive all the commodity was worth. They
believed that the management and operation of a
factory were only "clerical in nature" and that in the
near future the working class should rise up and seize
the factories or means of production and operate
them as their own.
"But does not the investment of the capitalist entitle
him to some profit? Without his willingness to risk
considerable wealth would there be any factory?"
Marx and Engels answered this by saying that all wealth is created by the worker. Capital creates
nothing. Marx and Engels believed that the reason
certain men have been able to accumulate wealth is
because they have taken away the fruits of the worker
in the form of interest, rent or profits. They said this was "surplus value" which had been milked from the
labor of men in the past and should be confiscated
from the capitalists by the workers of the present.
Marx and Engels now dared to predict the ultimate
trend of development in modern capitalistic
civilization. They said that just as private workshops
had been taken over by the factory, so the small
factory would be taken over by the big combine. They
said the monopoly of capital would continue until it was concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer men while the number of exploited workers would
grow proportionately. And while a few were becoming
richer and richer the exploited class would get poorer
and poorer. They predicted that the members of the
so-called middle class who own small shops and
businesses would be squeezed out of economic
existence because they could not compete with the mammoth business combines. They also predicted
that the government would be the instrument of power which the great banks and industrial owners would
use to protect their ill-gotten wealth and to suppress
the revolt of the exploited masses.
In other words, all levels of society were being forced
into the opposing camps of two antagonistic classes -
- the exploiting class of capitalistic property owners
and the bitterly exploited class of the propertyless workers.
They further predicted that the revolutionary explosion
between these two classes would be sparked by the
inevitable advancement of technological
improvements in capitalistic industry. The rapid
invention of more and more efficient machines was
bound to throw more and more workers out of
employment and leave their families to starve or
perhaps survive on a bare subsistence level. In due
time there would be sufficient hatred, resentment and
class antagonism to motivate the workers in forming militant battalions to overthrow their oppressors by
violence so that the means of production and all
private property could be seized by the workers and
operated for their own advantage.
It is at this point that Communists and Socialists take
different forks of the road. The Socialists have maintained from the beginning that centralized control
of all land and industry can be achieved by peaceful
legislation. Marx denounced this as a pipe dream. He
held out for revolution. Nevertheless, he was quick to
see some advantage in pushing forward any
legislation which concentrated greater economic
power in the central government. But he did not look
upon such minor "victories of the Socialists" as
anything more than a psychological softening up for
the revolution which was to come.
Marx was particularly emphatic that this revolution must be completely ruthless to be successful. It must
not be a "reform" because reforms always end up by
"substituting one group of exploiters for another" and
therefore the reformers feel "no need to destroy the
old state machine; whereas the proletarian revolution
removes all groups of exploiters from power and
places in power the leader of the toilers and exploited
... therefore it cannot avoid destroying the old state machine and replacing it by a new one."18
Marx further justified the use of violence to bring about
the new society because he felt that if moral principles were followed the revolution would be abortive. He
pointed to the failure of the Socialist Revolution in
France during 1871: "Two errors robbed the brilliant
victory of its fruit. The proletariat stopped half-way:
instead of proceeding with the 'expropriation of the
expropriators,' it was carried away with dreams of
establishing supreme justice in the country.... The
second error was unnecessary magnanimity of the
proletariat: instead of annihilating its enemies, it
endeavored to exercise moral influence on them."19
Marx attempted to soften the blow of his doctrine of
violence by stating that he would be perfectly satisfied
if the capitalistic state could be transformed into a Communist society by peaceful means; however, he
pointed out that this would be possible only if the
capitalists voluntarily surrendered their property and
power to the representatives of the workers without a
fight. He logically concludes that since this is rather
unlikely it must be assumed that revolutionary violence
is unavoidable.
Marx and Engels were also convinced that the
revolution must be international in scope. They knew
that all countries would not be ready for the revolution
at the same time, but all Marxist writers have
emphasized the "impossibility of the complete and
final victory of socialism in a single country without the
victory of the revolution in other countries."20
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat
Since they now believed a revolution was inevitable,
the next question Marx and Engels asked was this:
Should they wait for it to come in the normal course of
events or should they take steps to promote the
revolution and speed up the evolution of society
toward Communism? Marx and Engels decided that it
had become their manifest duty to see that the
revolution was vigorously promoted. Why prolong the
suffering? The old society was doomed. In the light of
the principles discovered by Marx and Engels
perhaps the race could be saved a dozen
generations of exploitation and injustice simply by
compressing this entire phase of social evolution into
a single generation of violent readjustment.
They felt it could be done in three steps: First, by wiping out the old order. "There is but one way of
simplifying, shortening, concentrating the death agony
of the old society as well as the bloody labor of the
new world's birth -- Revolutionary Terror." 21 Second,
the representatives of the working class must then set
up a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Joseph Stalin
described the things which must be accomplished
during this period of the dictatorship:
1. Completely suppress the old capitalist class.
2. Create a mighty army of "defense" to be used "for
the consolidation of the ties with the proletarians of
other lands, and for the development and the victory of
the revolution in all countries."
3. Consolidate the unity of the masses in support of
the Dictatorship.
4. Establish universal socialism by eliminating private
property and preparing all mankind for the ultimate
adoption of full Communism.22
Third, the final step is the transition from socialism to
full Communism. Socialism is characterized by state
owner ship of land and all means of production. Marx
and Engels believed that after awhile when class
consciousness has disappeared and there is no
further resistance to be overcome, the state will
gradually wither away and then property will
automatically belong to all mankind "in common."
Later Lenin explained how the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat would pave the way for this final phase. He
said the dictatorship would be "an organization for the
systematic use of violence by one class against the
other, by one part of the population against another....
But, striving for Socialism, we are convinced that it will
develop further into Communism, and, side by side with this, there will vanish all need for force, for the
subjection of one man to another, of one section of
society to another, since people will grow
accustomed to observing the elementary conditions
of social existence without force and without
Even in the latter stages of Socialism, Lenin
visualized a world without courts, lawyers, judges,
rulers, elected representatives or even policemen. All
these would be swept down into the limbo of forgotten
and useless appendages which characterized the old
order of decadent capitalism. Lenin said the
spontaneous homogeneity of the socialized masses would make all the machinery of the old order
superfluous. He felt that the new society would even
change human nature until resistance to the
communal society would become "a rare exception
and will probably be accompanied by such swift and
severe punishment (for the armed workers are men of
practical life, not sentimental intellectuals, and they will
scarcely allow anyone to trifle with them), and very
soon the necessity of observing the simple,
fundamental rules of everyday social life in common will have become a habit. The door will then be open
for the transition from the first phase of communism to
the higher phase (full Communism)."24
The Classless, Stateless Society
Under Full Communism
All Marxists fervently hope that the new society will
produce the changes in human nature which are
necessary before full Communism can become a
reality. Individuals must forget that there was ever a
time when income could be secured from the mere
ownership of property or from productive labor. In
other words, wages will be abolished. They must
forget that some people once received very large
incomes while others received small ones. They must
lose any hope of a graduated pay-scale for
differences in productivity or service. They must forget
all about differences in skill, training, and mental or
physical abilities. They must come around to the
notion that, if man does the best he can in the best
type of work for which he is fitted, he is just as good
and just as deserving of income as any other man
regardless of differences in productivity and output.
This is the Communist promise that, "Each will
produce according to his ability and each will receive
according to his need." He must give up his old profit- motive incentive and become socially minded so that
he will work as hard as he can for the benefit of
society as a whole and at the same time be content to
receive, as a reward for his work, an amount of
income based on his needs in consumption.
Marx and Engels presumed that under such a system
the output of production would be so tremendous that
they could dispense with markets, money and prices. Commodities would be stockpiled at various central
places, and all individuals who worked would be
entitled to help themselves on the basis of their
needs. Marx and Engels felt there would be no
particular incentive to take more than was needed at
any one time because, due to the superabundance of
commodities, the worker could replenish his desires
at will. Services were likewise to be dispensed at
convenient places and individuals could call for these
services as they felt they were needed.
Under these pleasant circumstances, the Marxist writers explain, the government machinery of the
State will no longer be necessary:
"Only Communism renders the state absolutely
unnecessary, for there is no one to be suppressed --
'no one' in the sense of a class, in the sense of a
systematic struggle with a definite section of the
population. We are not Utopians (believing that
society can function on a sublime level of perfection),
and we do not in the least deny the possibility and
inevitability of excesses on the part of individual
persons, nor the need to suppress such excesses.
But, in the first place, no special machinery, no
special apparatus of repression is needed for this:
this will be done by the armed people itself, as simply
and as readily as any crowd of civilized people, even
in modern society, parts a pair of combatants or does
not allow a woman to be outraged. And, secondly, we
know that the fundamental social cause of excesses
... is the exploitation of the masses, their want and
their poverty. With the removal of this chief cause,
excesses will inevitably begin to 'wither away.' We do
not know how quickly and in what succession, but we
know that they will wither away. With their withering
away, the state will also wither away."25
It is significant that Communist theory treats the
proletariat as though it were a unique branch of the
human race. The proletariat is assumed to be a
special breed which would almost automatically
blossom into pleasant, efficient social-economic living
if it could just be liberated from oppressive
government. The government is presumed to be
nothing more than the tool of an oppressive class of
capitalists and consequently, if the capitalist class were destroyed, the need for any kind of government would be obliterated. The Communist leaders have
always felt confident that when the proletariat takes
over it will not want to oppress anyone and therefore
the need for government will be nonexistent.
It is also worthy of note that Lenin wanted the
proletariat to be an "armed people." This prospect
did not frighten Lenin at all. He had unmitigated
confidence that the members of the proletariat would
never abuse their power as the capitalists had done.
Furthermore, Lenin assumed that the proletariat had
the instinctive capacity to recognize justice on sight. Not only would they use their weapons to put down
any nonsocial acts in the community by spontaneous
"mass action," but Lenin believed they would
genuinely and heroically suppress any selfish,
nonsocial tendencies in themselves. They would have
acquired the "habit" of living in a communal social
order and would have grown "accustomed to
observing the elementary conditions of social
existence without force and without subjection."
Lenin then says that with the machinery of government
gone and with the Communist pattern of a classless,
stateless society established throughout the world,
finally "it becomes possible to speak of freedom!"26
1. Marx-Engels,Communist Manifesto, p. 39.
2. Marx-Engels,Communist Manifesto, p. 35.
3. Karl Marx, Povertyof Philosophy, p. 152.
4.N. Berdyaev, Vital Realities, p. 175.
5. Karl Marx, Contribution to Critique of Political Economy, p.
6. Friedrich Engels, Socialism -- Utopian and Scientific, p. 54.
7. Marx-Engels,Communist Manifesto, p. 12.
8. See Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Propertyand the State.
9. Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property
and the State, p. 206.
10. Selected Essays of Marx, p. 16.
11. Program of the Communist International, International Publishers,NewYork, 1936, p. 54.
12. E. Yaroslavsky,Religion in the USSR, p. 59.
13. Joseph Stalin, Leninism, Vol. 1, p. 387.
14. V.I. Lenin,Religion, pp. 47-48.
15. V.I. Lenin,Religion, p. 47.
16. Friedrich Engels, quoted in the Handbook of Marxism, p.
17. William Z. Foster, Syndicalism, p. 9.
18. Quoted from Problems of Leninism, by Joseph Stalin, pp.
19. Karl Marx, The Civil War In France, p. 80.
20. Program of the Communist International, pp. 34-35.
21. Quoted from the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, by J.E.
LeRossignol in From MarxTo Stalin, p. 231.
22. Joseph Stalin, Problems of Leninism, pp. 26-27.
23. V.I. Lenin, Imperialism: The State and Revolution, p. 187.
24. V.I. Lenin, Imperialism: The State and Revolution, p. 759.
25. E. Burns,Handbook of Marxism, p. 747.
26. E. Burns,Handbook of Marxism, p. 745.

Chapter Four
A Brief Critique of the Communist
Approach to World Problems
The modern student of history and economics will
have little difficulty discovering for himself where Communist theory departs from the most elementary
aspects of reality.
Disciples of Marx look upon the theories of
Communism as the most penetrating analysis of
history ever made by man, but many scholars look
upon the whole Communist framework as more or
less the product of the times in which Marx and
Engels lived. The writings of these men clearly reflect
a studied attempt to reconcile the five great influences
of their generation, which they tried to bring together
in one single pattern of thought. The influences which
left their mark on the minds of Marx and Engels were:
First, the violent economic upheaval of their day.
This is believed to have made Marx and Engels oversensitive to the place of economics in history.
Second, the widespread popularity of the German
philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Hegel. His theory of
"Dialectics" was adopted by Marx and Engels with
slight modification to explain all phenomena of nature,
the class struggle and the inevitable triumph of a
future proletariat society.
Third, the anti-religious cynicism of Nineteenth
Century Materialism. This led them to try to explain
everything in existence in terms of one single factor -- matter. They denied intelligent design in the universe,
the existence of God, the divinity of religion and the moral precepts of Judaic-Christian teachings.
Fourth, the social and economic ideals of Utopian Communism. Marx and Engels decided they wanted
a communal society, but they felt it had to be a
controlled society; they therefore abandoned the
brotherhood principle of the Utopians and declared
that Communism could only be initiated under a
powerful dictatorship.
Fifth, the revolutionary spirit of the Anarchists. Marx
and Engels promised two things which appealed to
the Anarchists -- the use of violent revolution to
overthrow existing powers, and eventually the creation
of a classless, stateless society.
It is because of these five important influences that the
student of Communism will find it to be a vast
conglomerate, designed; it would seem, to be all
things to all people.
Communism as a By-Product of the
Communism as a By-Product of the
Industrial Revolution
Marx and Engels were born in the midst of the
Industrial Revolution. Before this revolution four out of
every five citizens were farmers, but by the time Marx
and Engels were ready for college the mass migration of farmers to the industrial centers was
reaching the proportions of a flood tide. The resulting
concentration of the population created slum-ridden
cities which, in turn, contributed to disease, violence
and vice. It was a chain-reaction which grew out of the
amazing new machine-age. Pioneers of the Industrial
Revolution looked upon machines as the pounding,
pumping, inanimate monsters that would eventually
liberate mankind from the slavery of "baresubsistence" economics, but the negative critics saw
in them only the problems they created -- dislocation
of the population, maladjustment for the individual, the
family and the community, and finally, the inhuman
treatment of the men, women and children who served
Thus, Marx and Engels, like many others, felt a violent
reaction to the times in which they lived. Because it was a period of economic upheaval, perhaps it is
understandable that they should have reached the
conclusion that economic forces constitute the cruel
and ruthless iron hand which has guided the course of
all human history. It is at this point that we begin our
critique of Communist theory.
The Communist Interpretation of
Fallacy 1 -- The first fallacy of Communism is its
attempt to over-simplify history. Marx and Engels
attempted to change history from a fluid stream, fed
by human activities from millions of tributaries, into a
fixed, undeviating, pre-determined course of progress which could be charted in the past and predicted for
the future on the basis of a single, simple criterion --
economics. Obviously economics have played a vital
and powerful role in human history but so have
climate, topography, access to oceans and inland waterways, mechanical inventions, scientific
discoveries, national and racial affinities, filial
affection, religion, desire for explanatory adventure,
sentiments of loyalty, patriotism and a multitude of
other factors.
A number of modern Communists have admitted that
history is molded by all of these different influences,
but they have insisted that Marx and Engels intended
to include all of them in their Economic Determinism;
because all of these things directly or indirectly affect
the economic life of humanity. However, the writings
of Marx and Engels fail to reflect any such
interpretation. Even if they did, the modern Marxist would still be in difficulty because if Economic Determinism is intended to include every influence in
life then the Communist formula for interpreting history would be: "Everything determines everything." As a
basis for interpreting history this would be absurd.
Another group of modern Communists has tried to
extricate Marx and Engels from the narrow confines of
Economic Determinism by suggesting that economic
circumstances do not absolutely determine the course
of human history but merely condition men to follow
after a particular trend in social development.1 But
this, of course, while coming closer to the truth,
presumes a variable element of free will in the making
of history which Marx and Engels emphatically
denied. In fact, Economic Determinism in the
absolute, fixed and undeviating sense is the very
foundation for the prediction of Marx and Engels that
society must follow an inevitable course of
development from capitalism to socialism and from
socialism to Communism. This is what they meant when they said of capitalism: "Its fall and the victory of
the proletariat are equally inevitable."2
Furthermore, when any modern Marxist attempts to
argue that the course of human progress is not fixed
and inevitable he destroys the entire justification for
the Communist Revolution -- that violent upheaval which Marx said was the "one way of simplifying,
shortening, concentrating the death agony of the old
society."3 There is no excuse for the use of lethal
violence to concentrate and simplify the death of the
old society unless the death of that society is, in fact,
inevitable. That was the heart of Marx's argument. His
excuse for revolution falters if it is admitted that the
death of the old society is merely one of several
possibilities and not necessarily inevitable. Likewise,
his excuse is exploded if it is shown that the present
society is not dying at all but is actually more robust
than ever before and seems to be contributing more
to the welfare of mankind with each passing
So the Communist interpretation of history on the
basis of Economic Determinism turns out to be a weak and brittle reed even in the hands of its
defenders. The disciples of Marx have recognized its weaknesses and tried to patch it up but the patches
have only created new splinters in the already frail, dry
straws of Communist logic.
Fallacy 2 -- Marx and Engels not only over-simplified
history, but they relied on a second fallacy in order to
justify the first. They said that the human mind is
incapable of moral free will in the sense that it makes
a choice in directing the course of history. Marx and
Engels believed that material circumstances force the
human mind to move in a certain direction and that man does not have the free will to resist it.
This sounds like the teachings of the Nineteenth
Century Mechanistic Materialists who claimed that the
brain is somewhat like a passive wax tablet which
receives impressions from the outside world and then
responds automatically to them; but Marx and Engels
did not want to be identified with this school of
thought. They therefore said the run-of-the-mill materialists had made a mistake. The brain is not
passive like a wax tablet but is an active embodiment which not only receives impressions from the outside world but has the ability to digest those impressions
through a process of analysis and synthesis. Then
came the joker.
They declared that after the brain has digested its
impressions of the outside world it always decides to
do whatever is necessary for the preservation of the
individual in the light of material circumstances. In
their own subtle way they were simply saying that man
is the victim of his material environment. By a slightly
different line of thinking they had reached exactly the
same conclusions as the mechanistic materialists whom they had repudiated.
It will be recalled from the previous chapter that Marx
and Engels identified the thing we call "free will" as
being nothing more nor less than a conscious
awareness of the materialistic forces which impel the
individual to act. This conscious awareness of
"natural necessity" makes men think they are
choosing a course of action, when, as matter of fact,
they are simply watching themselves follow the
dictates of material circumstances.
Once again it will be seen that Marx and Engels oversimplified. The complexities of human behavior
cannot be explained simply in terms of "necessary"
responses to material circumstances. Often men defy material circumstances to satisfy numerous other motivations such as the desire for self-expression, the moving power of a religious conviction, the drive of a moral sense of duty, the satisfying of personal pride
or the realizing of a personal ambition.
This fallacy -- the refusal to recognize man's moral
agency and the power to make a choice is fatal to Marxism. It is the initial error on which a multitude of
other fallacies are built. When Communism says the
human mind is the absolute victim of material
circumstances and that human history is merely the
unavoidable response of human beings to physical
conditions, it must demonstrate these claims with
examples. Note how this fallacy compounds itself as Marx and Engels attempt to use it in explaining the
structure of society.
The Communist Explanation of
Fallacy 3 -- First of all, Marx and Engels said the form
of society is automatically determined by the
economic conditions which motivate the dominant
class in any particular age. As Marx put it: "Are men
free to choose this or that form of society for
themselves? By no means. Assume a particular state
of development in the productive forces of man and
you will get a particular form of commerce and
consumption. Assume a particular stage of
development in production, commerce and
consumption and you will have a corresponding social
structure, a corresponding organization of the family,
of orders or of classes, in a word, a corresponding
civil society. Presuppose a particular civil society and
you will get particular political conditions which are
only the official expression of civil society."4
It seems inconceivable that Marx and Engels could
have allowed wishful thinking to so completely
obscure the facts of history that they would have
convinced themselves that when a certain type of
production exists a certain type of society must exist
also. In ancient times the mode of production
remained the same for centuries while society ran the
gamut of almost continuous change. Historians and
economists have pointed out that if history
demonstrates anything at all it is the fact that there is
no direct relation between mode of production and
the form society will take. Let us see why.
The Origin of the State
Fallacy 4 -- Marx and Engels believed that the State
(any form of sovereign government) is an
unnecessary appendage to society which the
dominant class creates to forcibly preserve its
interests and suppress the uprising of the exploited
class. Marx and Engels did not believe any
government in any age represented the interests of all
of the people or even the welfare of a majority of the
people. In the Communist Manifesto they said: "The
executive (branch) of the modern State is but a Committee for managing the common affair of the
whole bourgeoisie (property class)."5
Sociologists, psychologists, historians and political
scientists point out that not by any stretch of
imagination can government be called an appendage
to society because it is the very heart of group living.
This is true because society cannot exist unless it is
governed by some degree of authority, and the
presence of authority in society constitutes
"government." Man is by nature a social and political
being, and therefore the creation of governments to
direct the members of the community toward their
common welfare is simply an inherent expression of
the very nature of man. Therefore a stateless society
(a civilization without a government) which Marx and
Engels vigorously advocated would be an
unorganized mob. It would be no society at all.
Fallacy 5 -- Marx and Engels also encounter difficulty when the form of the State is explained as an
inevitable outgrowth of some particular form of
economic circumstances. If this were true then the
same mode of production would always produce the
same essential form of government. Let us take a
look at the history of ancient Greece and ancient
Rome. In both of these nations the fundamental mode
of production was slavery. According to the Marxian
explanation the form of these governments should
have remained approximately the same so long as
the mode of production (slavery) remained in effect.
But contrary to Marxian expectations we find both
these governments passing through many changes
even though the mode of production did not change.
In Athens there was a succession of hereditary monarchies, followed by the aristocratic and
democratic republics, then the despotism of the thirty
tyrants and finally democracy was established once
again. In Rome there was first an elective royalty
followed by the aristocratic and democratic republics,
and then came the absolute monarchy under the Caesars. These are typical of the incidents in history where the form of the government has changed while
the mode of production has remained the same.
Now let us illustrate the fallacy of this Communist
theory another way. If the form of the State is fixed by
Economic Determinism, then the form of the State
should change when the mode of production changes.
But this seldom happens. Take the history of the United States for instance. The form of the U.S. Government has remained essentially the same since
its founding. Was the government different in the
slave-economy of the south than the industrial
economy of the north? Did the government in the
south change after slavery was abolished? The mode
of production changed, the form of government did
not. In other words, men can create any form of
government they wish without reference to the
prevailing mode of production. There are many
historical examples which clearly refute this important
Communist concept.
Fallacy 6 -- In connection with the creation of the
State, the Communists also maintain that a code of
laws is developed to protect the exploiting class;
further, that if the mode of production changes the
code of laws will have to be reformulated to foster the
specific new mode of production. Logically, this would mean that each time there is a revolutionary change in
the mode of production there will have to be a
revolutionary change in the system of law. In no
instance should the same code of law be capable of
serving nations which are under different modes of
Once again history throws confusion on Communism
when this theory is applied to specific situations. One
of the best examples is the history of the Western World where radical changes in methods of
production have often been followed by no more than minor alterations in the various codes of law. Modern
capitalistic society throughout Europe and America
is, in general, governed by codes of law which are
founded on the same fundamental principle as those which prevailed centuries before the Industrial
Revolution. In England the Common Law was
developed during the days of a feudal economy. The
overthrow of Feudalism only strengthened the Common Law, and it was further strengthened after
the Industrial Revolution. In America the abolition of
slavery did not overthrow the fundamental legal code
of either the states or the nation. These are simple
examples of the rather obvious historical fact that
there is no essential dependence between society's method of production and the code of laws which it
chooses to create.
What Is Religion?
Fallacy 7 -- Communism further alleges that religion
is not of divine origin but is simply a man-made tool
used by the dominant class to suppress the exploited
class. Marx and Engels described religion as the
opiate of the people which is designed to lull them
into humble submission and an acceptance of the
prevailing mode of production which the dominant
class desires to perpetuate. Any student of history would agree that there have been times in history when unscrupulous individuals and even misdirected
religious organizations have abused the power of
religion, just as all other institutions of society have
been abused at various times.
But it was not the abuse of religion which Marx and
Engels deplored as much as the very existence of
religion. They considered it a creation of the dominant
class, a tool and a weapon in the hands of the
oppressors. They pointed out the three-fold function of
religion from their point of view: first, it teaches
respect for property rights; second, it teaches the
poor their duties towards the property and
prerogatives of the ruling class; and third, it instills a
spirit of acquiescence among the exploited poor so
as to destroy their revolutionary spirit.
The fallacy of these allegations is obvious to any
student of Judaic-Christian teachings. The Biblical
teaching of respect for property applies to rich and
poor alike; it admonishes the rich to give the laborer
his proper wages and to share their riches with the
needy. Time and again the Old Testament denounces
the selfish rich because "the spoil of the poor is in
your houses. What mean ye that ye beat my people to
pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the
The New Testament denunciation of the selfish rich is
just as pointed: "Go to now, ye rich men, weep and
howl for your miseries that shall come upon you....
Behold, the hire of the laborers who have reaped
down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud,
crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are
entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth."7
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom
of god.8
As to the allegation of the Communist that religion makes men passive, we have only to observe that the
dynamic power of religious convictions is precisely what prevents a soundly religious person from
accepting Communist oppression and Communist mandates. A person practicing the teachings of the
Judaic-Christian philosophy will not lie or steal on
command. He will not shed innocent blood. He will not
participate in the diabolical Communist practice of
genocide -- the systematic extermination of entire
nations or classes.
It is clearly evident from the numerous Communist writings that what they fear in religion is not that it makes religious people passive to the dominant class
but that it prevents them from becoming passive to Communist discipline. Deep spiritual convictions
stand like a wall of resistance to challenge the
teachings and practices of Communism.
Furthermore, the Communist sees in the dynamic
ideology of Judaic-Christian teachings a force for
peace which cuts through the vitals of Communism's
campaign for world-wide revolution. As Anatole
Lunarcharsky, the former Russian Commissar of
Education declared: "We hate Christians and
Christianity. Even the best of them must be
considered our worst enemies. They preach love of
one's neighbor and mercy, which is contrary to our
principles. Christian love is an obstacle to the
development of the Revolution. Down with love of
our neighbor! What we want is hate.... Only then can
we conquer the universe."9
The Communist Theory of Morals
Fallacy 8 -- Communist writers likewise maintain that
the Judaic-Christian code of ethics is "class" morality.
By this they mean that the Ten Commandments and
the ethics of Christianity were created to protect
private property and the property class. To show the
lengths to which Communist writers have gone to
defend this view we will mention several of their
favorite interpretations of the Ten Commandments.
They believe that "Honor thy Father and thy Mother" was created by the early Hebrews to emphasize to
their children the fact that they were the private
property of their parents. "Thou shalt not kill" was
attributed to the belief of the dominant class that their
bodies were private property and therefore they
should be protected along with other property rights.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "Thou shalt not
covet thy neighbor's wife" were said to have been
created to implement the idea that a husband was the master of the home and the wife was strictly private
property belonging to him.
This last line of reasoning led to some catastrophic
consequences when the Communists came into
power in Russia. In their anxiety to make women
"equal with men" and prevent them from becoming
private property, they degraded womankind to the
lowest and most primitive level. Some Communist
leaders advocated complete libertinism and
promiscuity to replace marriage and the family.
Excerpts from a decree issued in the Soviet of
Saralof will illustrate the point:
"Beginning with March 1, 1919, the right to possess women between the ages of 17 and 32 is abolished
... this decree, however, not being applicable to women who have five children.... By virtue of the
present decree no woman can any longer be
considered as private property and all women
become the property of the nation.... The distribution
and maintenance of nationalized women, in
conformity with the decision of responsible
organizations, are the prerogative of the group of
Saralof anarchists.... All women thus put at the
disposition of the nation must, within three days after
the publication of the present decree, present
themselves in person at the address indicated and
provide all necessary information....
"Any man who wishes to make use of a nationalized woman must hold a certificate issued by the
administrative Council of a professional union, or by
the Soviet of workers, soldiers or peasants, attesting
that he belongs to the working class.... Every worker
is required to turn in 2% of his salary to the fund.... Male citizens not belonging to the working class may
enjoy the same rights provided they pay a sum
equivalent to 250 French francs, which will be turned
over to the public fund.... Any women who by virtue of
the present decree will be declared national property will receive from the public fund a salary equivalent to
575 French francs a month....
"Any pregnant woman will be dispensed of her duties
for four months before and three months after the birth
of the child.... One month after birth, children will be
placed in an institution entrusted with their care and
education. They will remain there to complete their
instruction and education at the expense of the
national fund until they reach the age of seventeen....
All those who refuse to recognize the present decree
and to cooperate with the authorities shall be
declared enemies of the people, anti-anarchists, and
shall suffer the consequences."10
Another document which illustrates the kind of
"liberation" which women received under the Communist version of morality is contained in a
decision handed down by a Soviet official in whom he
said: "There is no such thing as a woman being
violated by a man; he who says that a violation is wrong denies the October Communist Revolution. To
defend a violated woman is to reveal oneself as a
bourgeois and a partisan of private property."11
Only one other thought need be added concerning the Communist allegation that Judaic-Christian morals
represent a "class" morality. That is the fact that not
only is it quite simple to illustrate that such an
allegation is untrue but it is also quite simple to
illustrate that the most perfect example of "class" morality on the face of the earth today is Communism. Of the 180,000,000 people in Russia, only about
3,000,000 are members of the Communist party. This
small ruling minority ruthlessly compels the remainder
of the people to accept its decision as to what is
good and what is bad.
Communist morals follow a simple formula. Anything which Promotes the communist cause is good;
anything which hinders it is bad. Upon examination,
that philosophy turns out to be a code of opportunism
and expediency, or a code of no morals at all. Anyone who does not conform to the dictates of the Party as
to what is good for Communism and what is not, is
subjected to the most severe penalties under Articles
131 and 133 of the Soviet Constitution. Thus, the
perfect example of "class" morality, which the Marxists attribute to the Judaic-Christian code, is to
be found right in the Communist plan of action itself.
The Communist Theory of Class
Fallacy 9 -- The next fallacy is the claim of Marx and
Engels that they had discovered the secret of human
progress. This was identified by them as "class
As the student will recall, they said that when men
became aware that slavery was a satisfactory mode
of production, they built a society designed to protect
the rights of the slave owner. They further believed
that if this state of affairs had never been challenged
the mode of production by slavery would have
become a permanent fixture and society likewise would have been fixed. But Marx and Engels found,
as do all students of history, that the economic order
passed from slavery to feudalism and then from
feudalism to capitalism. What caused this? They
decided it was class struggle. They decided the
slaves overthrew their masters and created a new mode of production based on feudalism. A society was then developed to protect this mode of
production until the serfs overthrew their lords and set
up a mode of production characterized by freeenterprise capitalism. Modern society, they said, is to
protect capitalism.
Critics declare that Marx and Engels apparently
ignored some of the most obvious facts of history. For
example, the decay and overthrow of ancient
civilizations such as Egypt, Greece and Rome had
nothing to do with slaves rising up against their masters:
"The slaves of those days were for the most part
subservient, abject, and helpless creatures, whose
occasional murmurings and rebellions were
suppressed with horrible cruelty. Those were not
class struggles of the imaginary Marxian type and did
not bring the transition to feudalism. Engels himself
says that toward the end of the Roman Empire slaves
were scarce and dear; that the latifundia, which were
great agricultural estates based on slave labor, were
no longer profitable; that small-scale farming by
colonists and tenants was relatively lucrative; and that,
in short, 'slavery died because it did not pay any
longer.' Then came the barbarian invasion, the
downfall of Rome, and the establishment of feudalism
as the result of the conquest of a higher civilization by
a lower and not through the alleged driving force of a
class struggle."12
Similar historical problems exist for Marx and Engels
in connection with the transition of society from
feudalism to capitalism.
Fallacy 10 -- Not only does Communism fail in its
attempt to account for past progress on the basis of
class struggle, but it also fails in its prediction that
class antagonism would increase under capitalism in
the future. One hundred years have failed to develop
the two violently antagonistic classes which Marx and
Engels said were inevitable.
Communist agitators have done everything in their
power to fan the flame of artificial classconsciousness in the minds of the workers, but the
basic struggle between labor and capital has not
been to overthrow capitalism but to get the workers a more equitable share of the fruits of capitalism. For
example, during the past twenty years labor has
attained a higher status in the United States than ever
before. The Communists tried to seize leadership in
this reform trend, but the more the workers earned the more independent they became -- not only by
asserting their rights in relation to their employers but
also in discharging the Communist agitators from
labor union leadership. Workers did not respond to
the Communist call to overthrow capitalism, and
Communist writers have admitted this with some
At the same time, both governmental and industrial
leaders generally developed the philosophy that
strong buying power in labor is essential to keep the wheels of industry moving. Labor therefore came
closer to assuming its proper role as an integral part
of capitalism than ever before. This trend leaves Communism completely undone because such a
development makes labor an indispensable part of
capitalism rather than its class-conscious enemy.
Fallacy 11 -- Another Communist premise which has
failed is the assumption that under capitalism all wealth would be gradually monopolized until a handful
of men would own everything and the exploited,
propertyless class would be the overwhelming majority of mankind. Instead of growing, however, the
propertyless proletariats actually have been
decreasing under capitalism. Marx wrote his massive
tome on Capital while he was living in the most abject
poverty. He looked upon the proletariat as those who were living under conditions similar to his own --
people who had absolutely no property and no capital
Today, in the highly-developed capitalistic nation of
the United States, the only people who could be
classed as proletariat under Marx's definition would
be those who own no land, have no savings deposits,
no social security, no retirement benefits, no life
insurance, no corporate securities and no government
bonds, for all these represent the ownership of
productive wealth or of money, funds over and beyond
the immediate needs of consumption. Such a class of
propertyless proletariat does exist in the United
States just as there has been one in all nations and in
all ages, but the significant thing is that the proletariat
in the United States is such a small minority that Marx would scarcely want to claim it. Under American
capitalism wealth has been more widely distributed
among the people than in any large nation in secular
history. This has reduced the property-less class which Marx had in mind to little more than a fringe of
the population.
In contrast to this we find that the country which really
does have the majority of its population in a class of
property-less proletariat is the Motherland of
Communism where the Dictatorship of the Proletariat
has been in force for over thirty-five years!
Fallacy 12 -- Marx's theory on wages also collapsed with the passing of time. He assumed that
technological developments would make machines more and more efficient and therefore throw so many men out of work that they would compete for jobs until
wages would become more and more meager.
Technological development has actually created more
jobs than it has destroyed and, except during intervals
of depression, the long-range trend in capitalism has
been to get closer and closer to the economic dream
of "full-employment."
Fallacy 13 -- Since Marx believed that wages would
become smaller and smaller he assumed that the only
possible way to attain an adequate living would be by
owning property. That is why he said the possession
of property was the one thing which distinguished the
proletariat from the exploiting class. This conclusion was another major error. Today some individuals may
readily receive $10,000 a year for the sale of their
labor services while others live on incomes of $2,500
derived from the ownership of property. In such cases
it would certainly seem ludicrous to call the first group
proletariat and the second group exploiting
bourgeoisie. Under capitalism the ownership of
property is certainly not the only means of gaining
adequate economic independence.
Fallacy 14 -- Marx and Engels also failed in trying to
predict what would happen to the middle class under
capitalism. They said the middle class would be
forced to follow the dismal process of sinking back
into the propertyless class so that ultimately there would be just two violently antagonistic classes -- the
capitalists and the propertyless proletariat. The very
opposite happened. Economists have made studies which show that the middle class (consisting of
people who are neither extremely prosperous nor
exceptionally poor) has been rapidly growing. As a
group the members of the middle class have
increased in number, in wealth and in proportion to
the rest of the population.13
Fallacy 15 -- Another fallacy in Communism is the
theory that class struggle leads to "necessary
progress." In this theory Marx and Engels attempted
to apply the dialectics of their philosophy which say
that out of struggle between two opposing forces an
inescapable new evolutionary advancement is made.
This fails to explain the unprogressiveness which has
characterized many nations for centuries -- nations
such as India, China, Egypt, Arabia and the
populations in East Asia.
It also fails to explain one of the most obvious facts of
history, namely, the retrogression of civilizations. The whole pattern of human experience shows that
nations rise to a summit of power and then pass
through moral and intellectual decay to lose their
cultural standing and economic predominance. This is
vastly easier to demonstrate in history than the theory
that class struggle has lifted man through an everascending series of stages called "necessary
Fallacy 16 -- Finally, the failure of class struggle to
explain the past also failed Marx and Engels when
they tried to predict what would happen in their own
lifetime. They said that Communism would come first
in those countries which were most highly capitalistic
because the class struggle would become more
sharply defined as capitalism increased. On this
basis they thought Communism would come first in Germany.14 A few years later Marx shifted his
prediction to England.15
It was ironical that Communism (at least the Dictatorship of the proletariat) should first come to Russia -- a nation which in economic matters was one
of the least developed among all the countries in
Europe. Furthermore, Communism came as a coup
in Russia, not through any class struggle on the part of
the workers. It came through the conspiratorial
intrigue of V.I. Lenin, who was encouraged by the German High Command to go into Russia during the
closing months of World War I and use a small, hard
core of revolutionaries to seize the provisional
government which had but recently forced the Tzar to
abdicate and was at the moment representing the working class, as much as anyone else, in setting up
a democratic constitution.
Communism therefore did not come to Russia as the
natural outcome of class struggle but like any other
dictatorship -- by the military might of a small minority.
This brings us to the fallacy of the "Dictatorship of the
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat
Fallacy 17 -- This proposed monopoly of political and
economic power was designed to do many things for
the good of humanity, but experience has proven
them to be false dreams. For example, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was designed to
spread the enjoyment of wealth among the people by
abolishing private property and putting all means of
production in the hands of the government. Why did
they want to do this? They said it was to prevent all
property and wealth from falling into the hands of
private capitalists.
But what happened when the Communists attempted
to do this in Russia? It destroyed what little division of wealth there was and sent the economy hurtling back
in the direction of feudalism -- an economic system
under which a few privileged persons dispense the
necessities of life by arbitrary determination while at
the same time dictating the way in which all important
phases of life shall be lived by the citizens.
The folly of Marx and Engels was in failing to
distinguish the difference between the right of private
property and the abuse of private property. They were
going to get rid of the abuse by abolishing the right.
The problem of humanity has not been the right to own
private property but how to provide an equitable
distribution of property rights so that many people
could enjoy them. Therefore, Communist theory does
not solve the problem because of the simple fact that
putting all property back under the supervision of the
hirelings of a dictatorship launches a trend toward monopoly of property rather than toward a wider
distribution of its enjoyment.
Fallacy 18 -- The Dictatorship of the Proletariat was
also designed to compensate each man for work
performed rather than for wages earned. But by
abolishing wages in favor of labor certificates, Communist leaders were simply abandoning the
prevailing medium of exchange. After the Communist
revolution in Russia it was found that this idea forced
that nation to resort to a primitive barter system. The whole idea was so disastrous that it had to be
abandoned after a few months. The Communists
learned that the problem of equalizing wages is not
solved by abolishing wages per se.
Fallacy 19 -- The Dictatorship of the Proletariat was
also intended to permit the creation of a huge
"defense" army which would help "liberate" the
proletariat in other nations until finally the Dictatorship would cover the entire earth.
This veiled attempt to obscure the imperialistic
ambitions of Communist leaders for world conquest is
still employed. Their armies are always described as
being for "defense" and the victims of their
aggression as being "liberated." Recent world history
has provided a tragic commentary on the role of
Communist liberation.
Fallacy 20 -- The Dictatorship of the Proletariat was
further expected to give the Communist leaders time
to demonstrate to the masses the effectiveness of
their plan so as to insure a unity of support for "full
communism" which was soon to follow. The Communist Dictatorship in Russia has had no such
power to persuade. In fact, the violence which, was
authorized for use against the capitalist class has had
to be turned loose with equal fury on the proletariat or working class so that today the masses have been
reduced to a state of numb and fearful acquiescence
rather than a "unity of support" for the Communist
The Stateless, Classless Society
Under Full Communism
Fallacy 21 -- The Communist dream of a great new
"one world" of the future is based on the belief that a
regime of violence and coercion under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat would permit the
establishment of a society which would produce a
new order of men who would acquire the habit of
observing what Lenin called the "simple fundamental
rules of every-day social life in common."
The fallacy of this hope lies in Communism's
perverted interpretation of human behavior. It
assumes, on the basis of Dialectical Materialism, that
if you change things outside of a man this
automatically compels a change on the inside of the man. The inter-relation between environment on the
outside and the internal make-up of man is not to be
disputed, but environment only conditions man, it
does not change his very nature. For example, just
as men will always laugh, eat, propagate, gravitate
into groups and explore the unknown, so likewise they will always enjoy the pleasure of possessing things
(which alone gives pleasure to sharing); they will
always possess the desire for individual expression
or self-determination, the ambition to improve their
circumstances and the motive to excel above others.
These qualities are inherent in each generation and
cannot be legislated away nor ignored.
Therefore no amount of violence and coercion will
ever develop permanent habits of observing the
"simple fundamental rules of every-day social life in
common" if that social life violates the very nature of man. No matter how man is suppressed he will harbor
in his very nature a passionate instinct for freedom to
express these desires which are his by inheritance
rather than by acquisition. That is why these desires
cannot be ignored, and that is why they will not be
annihilated even under the ruthless suppressions of a militant Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They will surely
rise to assert themselves the very moment the
dictatorship shows signs of "withering away."
Sixty centuries of history have demonstrated that
society succeeds only when it tempers man's natural
instincts and inclinations, In fact, these same qualities
of human nature which Communism would try to
abolish are the very things which, under proper
circumstances, men find to be the sources of
satisfaction, strength and well-being which lead to
progress for both the individual and for society as a whole.
Fallacy 22 -- Marx and Engels were so anxious to
discredit capitalism that they spent most of their time
on that particular theme and never got around to
revealing the complete pattern for "full communism" which was to replace capitalism; nevertheless, we do
have sufficient information to reveal its congenital weaknesses. One of these is the axiom that "Each will
produce according to his ability; each will receive
according to his need."
This perhaps sounds excellent when one is dealing with a handicapped person, because society is willing
to make up to an obviously handicapped person that which he cannot do for himself. But what happens when this is applied to the whole society? Recently a
teacher asked his students what they thought about
this Communist slogan, and they all seemed to think it was fine. The teacher then said he would give them a
little demonstration of what would happen in school if
"each produced according to his capacity and each
received according to his need." Said he:
"To get a passing grade in this class you must
receive 75. Therefore, if any of you get 95 I will take
off 20 points and give it to a student who only gets 55.
If a student gets 90 I will take off 15 points and give it
to a student who only makes 60. In this way everyone will get by."
Immediately there was a storm of protest from the
brighter, hard-working students in the class, but the
lazy or less studious pupils thought it was a fine idea.
Finally the teacher explained:
"In the long run I don't think any of you would like this
system. Here is what would happen. First, the highly
productive pupils -- and they are always a minority in
school as well as in life -- would soon lose all incentive
for producing. Why strive to make a high grade if part
of it is taken from you by 'authority' and given to
someone else? Second, the less productive pupils --
a majority in school as elsewhere -- would, for a time,
be relieved of the necessity to study or to produce.
This would continue until the high producers had sunk
or had been driven down to the level of the low
producers and therefore had nothing to contribute to
their companions. At that point, in order for anyone to
survive, the 'authority' would have no alternative but to
begin a system of compulsory labor and punishments
against even the low producers. They, of course, would then complain bitterly, but without
understanding just what had happened."16
In terms of Communism this need for "authority" would
simply mean returning to the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat in order to force all workers to produce more of life's necessities. But the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat fails, even with force, to make men
produce according to their ability. As in the example
cited by the school teacher, this is because Communism has deliberately destroyed the most
ordinary work incentives. Let us list four of them:
1. Increased reward for increased production.
2. Increased reward for working harder to develop
improved products.
3. Increased reward for working harder to provide
improved services.
4. The right of the worker to buy and develop property
with the accumulation of past rewards (profits) over
and beyond the needs of consumption and thereby
improve the circumstances of himself and his family.
The Communist leaders seem to have misunderstood
the universal lesson of life that man's greatest enemy
is inertia and that the mainspring of action to combat
inertia is not force but the opportunity for selfimprovement. Marx and Engels insisted that such an
attitude is selfish and "non-social," but the plain fact is
that a worker finds it difficult to work harder in order to
fill the stomachs of "society" when the fruits of his
labor do not first take care of himself and his family.
The Communists thought they could drive out this
"non-social" attitude with force, but thirty-five years of
Dictatorship in Russia have vividly demonstrated that men will not work according to their ability unless they
are compensated according to their ability. Even the Communist leaders know force has failed. Under the whip of the Dictatorship the workers have barely
produced enough to survive. The Communist leaders
therefore say that the Dictatorship must be continued
indefinitely. So long as the workers fail to produce
according to their ability there certainly can be no talk
of "full Communism" where each will receive
according to his need.
Fallacy 23 -- In studying the theories of Marx and
Engels the student soon becomes aware that they
failed to take into account some of the most
elementary facts of life. For example, they assumed
that in a stateless society mass-rule (which always
turns out to be mob-rule) would be more
discriminating and discerning than the executive,
legislative and judicial bodies of organized
government. To set this up as an expectation under
full Communism flies in the face of all past human
Fallacy 24 -- This theory also assumes that under the
suppression imposed by the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat men will lose or completely smother their
instinct of acquisition. Marx and Engels make it clear
that they expected the Dictatorship to get people in
the "habit" of not owning property or wanting to own it.
But what happens when the stateless society is
inaugurated and a whole new generation arrives on
the scene which has no memory of the merciless
suppression which gave their fathers the habit of
observing the "simple, fundamental rules of everyday
social life in common"? Suppose large numbers
refuse to do the kind of work or the share of work
expected of them, so that they are adjudged guilty of
not "producing according to their ability"? Or suppose
they demand from the classless, stateless society more than is believed to be their share?
What will happen if they organize themselves, secretly
equip themselves with weapons, and rise up
unexpectedly to seize the wealth which the classless,
stateless society refuses to give them? Will it not be
necessary to immediately set up the Dictatorship of
the Proletariat all over again to suppress this
opposition? Perhaps the instinct of acquisition is
going to be more difficult to suppress than Marx and
Engels thought. In fact, with the knowledge which we
already have concerning several thousand years of
human behavior, is it likely that Communism will ever
get past the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?
Fallacy 25 -- Finally, full Communism promises that
even in the absence of ordinary work incentives the
classless, stateless society will produce greater
quantities of goods than any existing system can
produce today. Under this theory it is intended that
Communist production will somehow reach a state of
absolute saturation where all human needs will be
satisfied. Supplies are to be stockpiled and
distributed according to the needs of every person.
Services are likewise to be made available at central
depots and are to be available in such quantity that all
elements of competition among consumers will be
eliminated. Thus, Communism promises to do away with markets, money and prices.
What happens, then, if the goal of absolute saturation
is not reached? Would not the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat have to be called into service once more
to suppress dissatisfaction? A good example of the
problem might be the case of automobiles. How many
automobiles would have to be produced to reach
absolute saturation for the wants (which must
ultimately become synonymous with need if there is to
be no state authority) of two billion people? Under
capitalism, economic necessity makes a family feel
satisfied with one or two cars. What would happen if
this economic necessity were removed? Under full
Communism a good worker is entitled to all the cars
he wants. Unless he gets all he wants the ogre of
selfishness will raise its ugly head. Time and again Communist writings promise sufficient production to
eliminate the element of selfishness which leads to
class struggle.
And what happens when new models come out? Will
society automatically scrap all cars every time a new model is developed? Under full Communism who would want an old car? This may seem somewhat
preposterous but, as a matter of fact, it would be a most commonplace problem and would arise in
connection with all types of production. Someone would have to decide who must keep their old cars for
an extra year or two since otherwise every family would most certainly demand a new one. Each family might even demand several new ones.
The problems under such a system obviously assume mountainous proportions and any hope of eliminating money, markets and prices fades into oblivion. Such
a system also would require many times more
government machinery than free-enterprise
capitalism, and the prospect of producing goods and
services in such quantities that the state might "wither
away" defies both reason and experience.
Communism as a Negative
Approach To Problem-Solving
In concluding this discussion of the basic fallacies in Communism we should perhaps make a summary
comment on the most significant fallacy of them all.
This is the Communist doctrine that problems can be
solved by eliminating the institution from which the
problems emanate. Even Marx and Engels may have
been unaware that this was what they were doing, but
the student will note how completely this approach
dominates every problem they undertook to solve.
Take, for example, the problems of government. Marx
and Engels would solve these problems by working
for the day when they could eliminate government.
Problems of morals would be solved by doing away with morals. Problems growing out of religion would
be solved by doing away with religion. Problems of marriage, home and family would be eliminated by
doing away with marriage, home and family.
The problems arising out of property rights would be
resolved by not allowing anyone to have any property
rights. The problem of equalizing wages would be
solved by abolishing wages. Problems connected with money, markets and prices would be solved by
doing away with money, markets and prices.
Problems of competition in production and
distribution would be solved by forcibly prohibiting
Finally, they would solve all the problems of modern
society by using revolution to destroy this society. It
seems the phantom of Communist hope can only
arise from the bowels of the earth through the ashes
of all that now is. Communism must be built for one
purpose -- to destroy. Only after the great destruction
did the Communist leaders dare to hope that they might offer to their disciples the possibility of
freedom, equality and justice.
It is this dismal and nebulous promise for the future which Communism offers the world today. Until such a
day comes, the Communist leaders ask humanity to
endure the conflagration of revolutionary violence, the
suppression and liquidation of resistance groups, the
expropriation of property, the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat which they themselves describe as "based
on force and unrestricted by any laws," the
suspension of all civil liberties -- suppression of free
press, free speech and assembly, the existence of
slave labor camps, the constant observation of all
citizens by secret police, the long periods of service
in the military, the poverty of collective farming, the
risk of being liquidated if discovered associating with
deviationists, and finally, the tolerance of an economic
order which promises little more than a life of bare
subsistence for generations to come.
More than forty years have come and gone since Communist leaders first seized a nation to
demonstrate to a curious world what marvelous wonders might be wrought. From that one nation they
have expanded their grip until one-third of the human
race now bows to their iron-clad dictates. Those who
have escaped their tyranny bear witness that Marxist
Man has produced a political monstrosity containing
the collected relics of practically every form of human
degradation and torture invented by the mind of man
since the dawn of history.
While pretending to liberate mankind from the alleged
oppression of capitalism Marxist Man has defied the warm, white light of Twentieth Century civilization to
introduce slavery on a scale unprecedented in the
history of the race. While claiming to foster the "rights
of the common man" the Marxist has butchered his
fellow citizens from Kulaks to aristocrats in numbers
that baffle rational comprehension. And while
describing himself as the epitome of the best in
nature -- the creature of science, the supreme
intelligence of the universe -- Homo-Marxian has
exploited his cunning to compound crimes which
scarcely would be duplicated by the most predatory
tribes of pre-historic times.
It is for this reason that discerning men have
described Communism as reversing and negating
history. It has turned man against himself. Instead of
solving the many complex problems of modern life, Marxism's negative approach has simply resurrected
primitive problems which past generations of
struggling humanity had already succeeding in
To more fully appreciate precisely what has been
happening we shall now examine the circumstances which led to the launching of the first Communist
controlled nation in the history of the world.
1. See Shirokov-Mosley, ATextbook of Marxism, p. 22.
2. Marx-Engels,Communist Manifesto, p. 29.
3. Karl Marx, quoted by J.E. LeRossignol in From Marx to
Stalin, p. 321.
4. Karl Marx, Povertyof Philosophy, pp. 152-153.
5. Marx-Engels,Communist Manifesto, p. 15.
6. Isaiah 3:14-15.
7. James 5:1-6.
8. Matthew19:24.
9.Quoted in Congressional Record, Vol. 77, pp. 1539-1540.
10. Quoted by Gabriel M. Roschini in his article,
"Contradictions Concerning the Status of Women in Soviet Russia," which appears in The Philosophy of Communism,
byGiorgio La Pira and others, Fordham UniversityPress,New
York, 1952, pp. 97-98.
11. Outchit Gazeta, October 10, 1929. Quoted by Charles J. McFadden in The Philosophy of Communism, pp. 292-293
and note.
12. J.E. LeRossignol, From MarxTo Stalin, pp. 152-153.
13. Ralph E. Blodgett, Comparative Economic Systems, p,
14. Marx-Engels,Communist Manifesto, p. 58.
15. Marxis quoted byM.D'Arcyin Christian Morals, p. 172.
16. Related byThomas J. Shelly, instructor in Economics and History, Yonkers High School, Yonkers,NewYork

Chapter Five
The Rise of the Revolutionary
Movement in Russia
The events described in this chapter are intimate
facts in the minds of all well-informed Marxists. Communists often base their arguments on their
interpretation of these events and therefore the
student should find this historical background helpful.
This chapter also includes the biographies of the
principal Communist leaders -- Nikolai (V.I.) Lenin,
Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin.
A review of the following questions will indicate some
of the answers which this chapter is designed to
Who launched Marxism in Russia in 1868? Why did
Marx consider this man his "enemy"? After the
assassination of Alexander IIwhat did Marx say about
the possibility of a Communist revolution in Russia?
What kind of environment produced Nikolai Lenin?
Why was his brother hanged?
Who organized the Bolsheviks? What does the name mean? What did they call their enemies? Was this an
accurate designation or a matter of strategy?
What was the background of Leon Trotsky? How did
he get this name? How did he escape from Siberia?
Why did he oppose Lenin in 1903?
Was the Russian Revolution of 1905 led by a few
radicals or was it a general uprising of the whole
people? Why did Lenin and the Bolsheviks oppose
the "October Manifesto" which promised the people
representative government?
From what kind of home did Joseph Stalin come?
Why was he expelled from the seminary where he was being trained as a priest? What did the criminal
activities of Joseph Stalin during 1907 reveal about
his personality? How extensive were Stalin's activities
as a union organizer, propagandist and revolutionary
leader during this period? What was his relationship
to Lenin?
What brought Russia to the brink of another general
uprising during the First World War? What was the
Tsar's attitude during this crisis?
Marxism Comes to Russia
In 1885 a U.S. citizen, Andrew D. White, returned
from a tour of duty as attache in the American
Embassy at St. Petersburg and described the Russian situation as follows: "The whole
governmental system is the most atrociously
barbarous in the world. There is on earth no parallel
example of a polite society so degraded, a people so
crushed, an official system so unscrupulous."1
When White made this statement, the population of
Russia was slightly over 70,000,000. Of these,
46,000,000 were in virtual captivity as serfs.
It will be recalled that Marx and Engels had been
aroused to wrathful vehemence when they saw
conditions among the industrial workers of England,
but the status of life among the English was far above
that of the peasants in Russia. The Russian serfs were not only starved, exploited and pauperized, but
they were subjected to an iron-clad system of feudal
political suppression. Always there was the plague of
the secret police, the threat of arrest and sentencing
to forced labor camps in Siberia and the cruel
indecencies imposed upon them by the Tsar's
everpresent military. A Russian serf seemed to enjoy
no sacred immunities whatever, neither in his person,
his possessions, his children, nor, sometimes, his wife. All were subject to the petty whims of grasping
officials in the Tsar's corrupt bureaucracy.
Between 1861 and 1866, Tsar Alexander II sincerely
attempted to do away with the institution of serfdom
by approving several acts of emancipation. However,
for all practical purposes, the impoverished lives of
the peasants continued to be insecure, harsh and
austere. Circumstances leading to a revolution were
in the making.
Marxism came to Russia in 1868 when Bakunin's
translation of Capital escaped the Tsar's censors and
passed among liberals and radicals like a choice morsel of spiritual meat. For Russia it meant the
kindling of the bright red flame in the original
Communist Manifesto: "Let the ruling classes tremble
at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have
nothing to lose but their chains.... Working men of all
countries, unite!"
Russian revolutionary movements soon began to take
shape and by 1880 Marxism could be described as
definitely taking hold. The first significant violence
came in 1881 when Tsar Alexander II fell dying
beneath the shattering impact of a bomb which was
hurled into the royal carriage by Ignatius Grinevitsky, a member of a revolutionary group called "The People's Will."
The successful murder of the Tsar led many Marxists
to feel that the hour for unrestricted revolution might
be very near. Over in London, the aging Marx began
receiving inquiries from his Russian disciples. They wanted to know whether or not it might be possible to
have a revolution in Russia even though the Russian
economy had never passed through the capitalistic
development which Marx had always said was a
prerequisite. Marx studied the problem diligently.
Finally, he gave it as his opinion that Russia had "the
rarest and most suitable opportunity ever offered to
any country to avoid (skip) the phase of capitalistic
development." In other words, Marx was suggesting
the possibility of an early revolution in Russia.
This was a complete theoretical switch for Marx. He was also admitting the error of one of his earlier
prophecies; namely, that the revolution would come
first among highly developed capitalistic nations such
as Germany and England. Among his friends he
declared: "It is an irony of fate that the Russians, whom I have fought for twenty-five years, and not only
in German (publications), but in French and English,
have always been my patrons."
It was indeed ironical that the Russian Marxists had
remained loyal to Marx and his theories in spite of the
verbal and editorial abuse he had heaped upon them.
This was never truer than in the case of Bakunin, the
first Russian Marxist, who promoted the theories of
Marx and Engels with such zeal, that they both feared
he might take over the First International. They,
therefore, marked him for political liquidation.
Even at the end, however, Bakunin reaffirmed his faith
in Marxism, and after referring to the "furious hatred"
of Marx toward himself, he concluded: "This has given me an intense loathing of public life. I have bad
enough of it, and after devoting all my days to the
struggle, I am weary.... Let other and younger persons
put their hands to the work. For my own part, I no
longer feel strong enough.... I therefore, withdraw from
the arena, and ask only one thing of my dear
contemporaries -- oblivion."
In 1876 Bakunin laid down the burden of his life, but
the "younger persons" to whom he bequeathed
Marxism and the Russian people's revolution were
already commencing to make their appearance
among men.
In 1870, Nikolai Lenin was born, and in the year 1879,
there arrived on earth both Joseph Stalin and Leon
Trotsky. Others would come, but these three were to
be the principal leaders in carrying forward the
traditions of Bakunin and at the same time doing for Marx what he was never able to do for himself; these
three would convulse a great nation in a revolution
and would serve as midwives at the birth of the world's first Communist dictatorship.
Nikolai Lenin, firstCommunist dictator:"Marxists have never
Nikolai Lenin, firstCommunist dictator:"Marxists have never
forgotten that violence will be an inevitable accompaniment of the
collapse of capitalism ... and of the birth of the socialist society."
The Early Life of Nikolai (V.I.) Lenin
Marx would hardly have guessed that the first
Communist dictator would be a man like Lenin, who was born on April 22, 1870, in Simbirsk, on the
Volga. His father was a Councilor of State with a
hereditary title of nobility while his mother was a German of the Lutheran faith. Lenin had red hair, high
cheek bones, and the slanting eyes of his Tartar
ancestors from Astrakhan.
Originally, Lenin was named Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov,
but "Nikolai Lenin" is the revolutionary pseudonym
under which he became famous. As a boy he had
strict training under a father who was called a "liberal"
even though he was a Councilor of State. His father was a man of humanitarian ideals who worked
himself to death setting up four-hundred and fifty
primary schools during a period of seventeen years.
Lenin was fifteen when his father died, and soon
afterwards an even greater tragedy struck the family --
his older brother was hanged.
This brother, named Alexander, was nearing twentyone. He had lost his religious faith some time before
and had become deeply impressed with the
philosophy of materialism. He had also come to feel
the need for direct and decisive action in getting
social reforms in Russia.
While attending the University at St. Petersburg (now
Leningrad), Alexander agreed with several
associates to construct a bomb which could be used
to kill Tsar Alexander III. The bomb was built inside a
bogus medical dictionary and consisted of dynamite
and strychnine-treated bullets. The police discovered
the assassination plot just before it was to have been
executed and the entire group was summarily
arrested. Trials and convictions soon followed, and in May, 1887, the St. Petersburg papers announced that
Lenin's older brother had gone to the gallows.
When the excitement subsided, Lenin, who had just
turned 17, went back to reading Marx and other
revolutionary writers in deadly earnest. Like his
brother, Lenin had lost his religious faith two or three
years before and was becoming reconciled to the
cynicism of the Marxist interpretation of life.
Furthermore, the death of his brother accelerated his
determination to become an active revolutionist as
soon as possible.
To give himself some kind of professional status,
Lenin made an intensive study of law. Through the
intercession of his mother, he was allowed to take his
final examinations at the Univerity in St. Petersburg
and came out first among one hundred and twentyfour students. Lenin then attempted to practice law,
but for some reason lost nearly all his cases and,
therefore, abandoned the law and never returned to it.
In 1891-92 the Russian famine and cholera epidemic
broke out. Lenin was living in a region where Tolstoy,
the famous Russian writer and philanthropist, was
trying to sustain the courage of the people by
organizing hundreds of soup kitchens and distributing
seed-grain and horses to the impoverished peasants.
But Lenin would have none of it. He would not help set
up soup-kitchens nor join a relief committee. Later he was accused of welcoming the famine as a means of
accentuating the suffering of the people and firing up
their revolutionary will to act. There is no doubt that
during these years the Marxist program was ramrodding Lenin's thinking into that of an
uncompromising revolutionist.
Shortly after this, Lenin took up residence in St.
Petersburg. He was now twenty-three and anxious to
begin active revolutionary work. He therefore joined
the "Fighting Union for the Liberation of the Working
Class." However, in 1895 Lenin learned that he had
tuberculosis of the stomach. This made it necessary
for him to go to Switzerland and undergo a cure at a
special sanitarium. While in Western Europe, he made contact with George Plekhanov, the leader of
the exiled Russian Marxists.
Lenin spent long hours with Plekhanov and felt highly
flattered that the big man among the exiled Russian
radicals would share with a newcomer his plans for a
violent revolution and the overthrow of the Tsar.
Plekhanov was equally impressed with Lenin. He felt
the heat of Lenin's glowing hatred for everything
tainted by the Tsar's regime, and therefore decided
that Lenin should return to Russia, rally the Marxists,
and organize a national Communist political party
patterned after the highly successful Social
Democrats in Germany. Lenin was also asked to
begin publishing a revolutionary periodical.
This assignment was accepted by Lenin as a heroic mission for which fate had predestined him. Upon
returning to Russia, he organized strikes, trained
recruits, formulated political strategy and wrote
inflammatory articles. But in the midst of this
promising campaign, a police agent betrayed the
group and Lenin found himself sentenced to exile in
faraway Siberia. Lenin accepted this interruption of
his revolutionary career with bitter resignation.
Soon after his arrival in Siberia Lenin was joined by a Marxist girl, whom he had met in 1894, named
Nadezhda Krupskaya. She was allowed to come, at
Lenin's request, on condition that she and Lenin
legalize their union with a marriage ceremony. This
violated their Marxist principle of "abolition of the
family," but they consented in order to remain
together. Lenin now had a companion as dedicated
to the revolution as himself. They had no children, and
close associates stated that they intentionally planned
against children because they both felt their missions
in life would not permit them to be thus encumbered.
Lenin spent his time in Siberia studying, writing
reams of letters in secret ink, solidifying the program
of the new Social-Democratic Party of Russia and
completing his book called, Capitalism in Russia.
When he was released in 1900, Lenin had become a
cautious, calculating, full-fledged, conspiratorial
revolutionist. He immediately headed for Munich, Germany, where he started printing a paper called
The Spark, which could be smuggled into Russia.
Thus began seventeen years of almost continuous
exile in Western Europe for Lenin and his wife. Only
on rare occasions did they secretly visit Russia. They
lived modestly and traveled light. It was as though they were waiting for the voice of history to assign them to
their revolutionary roles.
Origin of the Bolsheviks
By 1903 Lenin and his wife had set up headquarters
in London. They had the feeling they were carrying on where Marx had left off. Marx had been dead
seventeen years and often they made pilgrimages to
the cemetery where the grave of Marx is located.
In July of that year a Russian-Social-Democratic
congress convened in London. Forty-three delegates
came from Russia as well as from various groups of
Russian exiles in Western Europe. As chairman of the
congress, Lenin started off with a moderate and
impartial attitude, but as the discussions continued he was horrified to discover that the congress was moving toward pacifistic socialism rather than militant
revolution. Lenin immediately gathered his friends
and followers around him. He split the congress wide
open on the issue of whether party membership
should be limited to hard-core revolutionists (as
advocated by Lenin) or broadened to include anyone who felt sympathy for the movement.
In this dispute Lenin temporarily rallied around him a majority of the congress and thereafter used this as a
basis for calling those who supported him
"Bolsheviks" (which comes from a Russian word meaning "majority"), while those who opposed him
were called "Mensheviks" (which is taken from the Russian word meaning "minority"). The propaganda
value of a party title meaning "majority" will be quickly
recognized. It was another illustration of Lenin's
absolute determination to exploit every situation so as
to make it a tool to further his over-all political
At this particular congress, however, Lenin's victory was short-lived. Several groups combined their
strength against him and before long he found himself
representing the minority view on most matters. Nevertheless, Lenin continued calling his followers
"the Bolsheviks" and any who opposed him "the Mensheviks."
Background of Leon Trotsky
One of those who now opposed Lenin was a young,
twenty-three-year-old zealot named Leon Trotsky. At a
future day Lenin and Trotsky would join forces, but at
this congress of 1903 they stood in opposite camps.
Let us pause in our narration to consider briefly the
early life of Trotsky.
In many respects the background of Lenin and Trotsky was similar. Both had come from substantial families,
both had been well-educated, both had become
disillusioned and had engaged in revolutionary activity
and both had served sentences in Siberia.
Leon Trotsky had been born to the name of Lev
Bronstein. His father was a Kulak or rich peasant. Originally, Trotsky's father had been a fugitive from
the Tsar's anti-Jewish campaign and had fled from
city life to settle in a farming district near the Black
Sea, where there was more religious tolerance. However, as the members of the family prospered,
they gradually dropped the local synagogue as well as
the observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Finally, the
father came out openly in favor of atheism.
When Trotsky went away to school, he carried along with him these sympathies for materialism which he
had gained from his father. These attitudes soon
began to bear fruit. Toward the completion of his
school, Trotsky was not only exhibiting the cynicism of
a confirmed materialist, but he was also showing
strong signs of becoming a political radical. Although
this tendency was most displeasing to Trotsky's
father, nothing would dissuade him. Boisterous
scenes erupted between the two whenever Trotsky went home for vacations and after a few years Trotsky was completely alienated from his family.
Under these circumstances it was not at all difficult for
Trotsky to find a place in his mind for Marxism when it was finally presented to him. His conversion was
further facilitated by the fact that he was taught
Marxism by an attractive young woman six years his
senior whom he later married. Her name was
Alexandra Lvovna.
Trotsky was only nineteen when he and Alexandra
decided to help organize the South Russian Workers' Union. Among other things, Trotsky was assigned the
task of printing an illegal paper. As might have been
expected, this soon led to his arrest. Trotsky spent the
next three months in solitary confinement and after a
series of assignments to various prisons; he ended
up in Siberia where he was joined eventually by
Alexandra. They were both sentenced to serve four
years in a cold, barren region where there were few
settlements. Two children were born to them during
this exile.
Trotsky escaped in 1902 by burying himself in a
peasant's load of hay. He reached the Siberian
railroad and then used a fake identification paper to
pass himself off as "Trotsky" -- the name of his late
jailer! He used this name from then on. With the help
of several Marxist comrades, he made his way to
London and arrived there in time to participate in the
Social-Democratic Congress which we have already mentioned. Sometime later he was joined by his wife
and children.
Upon their first meeting Lenin and Trotsky struck it off
well. Lenin described Trotsky as a revolutionist of
"rare abilities." Trotsky reciprocated by suggesting
that Lenin be made the chairman of the congress. During the congress, however, Trotsky saw enough of
Lenin to make him apprehensive about the cold, bluesteel razor edge of Lenin's mind. He was shocked by
the reckless indifference Lenin exhibited as he
lopped off some of the oldest and most respected members of the party when they opposed his views.
(Trotsky's gentle concern for the feelings of fellow
comrades in 1903 stands in sharp contrast to his
position in 1917-1922 when he personally supervised
the ruthless liquidation of many hundreds of comrades whom he suspected of deviating from established
party policy.)
As it turned out, Trotsky's temporary opposition to
Lenin in 1903 did not hurt his revolutionary career. In
the years immediately following, Trotsky developed
into a brilliant writer and public speaker and he
became a well-known personality in Western Europe
long before Lenin. He is described as a handsome,
arrogant, anti-social intellectual who sometimes
offended his fellow-Marxists because of his flare for
elegant clothes. The down-sweep of his nose and moustache won for him the title of "The Young Eagle."
Now let us return to the swift course of events in the
history of the Russian revolutionary movement.
The Russian Revolution of 1905
By 1903 the political situation in Russia had become
explosive, Tsar Nicholas II did not realize it, but he was to be the last of the Tsars. As an administrator,
he had turned out to be amazingly weak. When he was a young man he had been very pleasant and
friendly, and Russian liberals had hoped that after he
ascended the throne he would adopt the badly
needed reforms which his country required in order to
take its place among the progressive nations of the world. But in this they were disappointed. Nicholas II
perpetuated the imperialistic policies of his father,
Alexander III, and enforced the stringent domestic
policies of his grandfather who was assassinated. In
fact, to satisfy his own expansive ambitions, Nicholas
II plunged Russia into a senseless war with Japan in
1903. Almost immediately he found the Russian
forces suffering humiliating defeat.
This Russo-Japanese War lasted a little over two
years and as it neared its mortifying conclusion, the
economic and political pressure on the Russian
people split the seams of the Empire asunder. Government officials were assassinated, mass
demonstrations were held, and a general strike was
called which eventually idled more than 2,500,000 workers. The Tsar used every form of reprisal
available to suppress the uprising, but mass arrests, mass imprisonment, and mass executions failed to
stem the tide. The entire population was up in arms;
bankers, peasants, professors, and illiterates walked
side by side in the demonstration parades.
A typical example of the Tsar's clumsy maneuvering
which brought on the revolution was the Winter Palace Massacre. This event occurred on Sunday, January
22, 1905, when a priest named Father George Gapon led a parade of several thousand unarmed workers to the front of the Winter Palace to present a
peaceful petition for the amelioration of labor
conditions. As the marchers drew near they could be
seen carrying large portraits of Nicholas II which they waved back and forth while lustily singing "God Save
the Tsar." It was a strange scene. The obvious poverty
of the workers stood out in vivid contrast to the magnificent splendor of the Tsar's Winter Palace, which was a large and extravagant structure capable
of housing more than 6,500 guests in its richly
decorated apartments.
But the Tsar did not come out to welcome them.
Instead the marchers found the palace completely
surrounded by massed troops. At first the workers were apprehensive about the situation, but they felt
reassured when there was no command to disperse.
Then suddenly they heard the hoarse shout of a
staccato military command. Immediately the Tsar's
troops opened direct fire on the crowd. The withering
volley leveled the front ranks to the ground while the
remaining marchers trampled one another as they
fled in terror trying to escape. The troops continued
firing until the crowd completely dispersed.
Approximately 500 were killed outright and 3,000 were wounded. This became notorious in Russian
history as "Bloody Sunday."
News of this atrocity spread like a tidal wave across
the steppes and plains of Russia. Already the people
were bristling with resentment against the burden of
the Russo-Japanese War, and this new outrage was
sufficient to trigger a universal revolt. At first a few of
the people tried to use violence, but generally
speaking, the principal method of retaliation was one which paralyzed the Tsar's wartime economy -- the
people stopped working. In a matter of months the
entire economic machinery of Russia came to a
standstill. Factories were closed, stores were empty,
newspapers were not printed, dry-goods and fuel were not moved and newly harvested crops were left
rotting on the loading docks. For the first time in his
career, Tsar Nicholas II was deeply frightened. He
abandoned the Russo-Japanese War and agreed to
hear the people's demands.
These consisted of four things:
1. Protection of the individual, allowing freedom of
conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of
assembly, and the right to form unions.
2. The right of the people of all classes to vote for the Duma (the people's assembly.)
3. The automatic repeal of any law enacted by the
Tsar without the consent of the people's assembly.
4. The right of the people's assembly to pass on the
legality of any decrees issued by the Tsar.
These demands were set in a document called "The October Manifesto." This Manifesto clearly illustrates
that the masses of the people had no intention of
destroying the Tsar, but merely wanted to set up a
limited monarchy similar to England. Such a
compromise infuriated the Marxists. They wanted the
revolution continued until the Tsar was forced to
surrender unconditionally and abdicate. Not until then
could they set up a Communist dictatorship.
Leon Trotsky, who had hastened to Russia when the
uprising started, stood before a crowd of people who were celebrating the Tsar's acceptance of the Manifesto and tore up a copy of it, declaring that the Manifesto was a betrayal of the revolution. He
immediately joined with other Marxists in setting up
political machinery to fan the flame of renewed
revolutionary activity. This was done primarily by
organizing a great many soviets (workers' councils in
the various labor unions). Lenin arrived belatedly in November, 1905, and agreed to join with Trotsky for
an "a second revolution." After sixty days, however,
the Marxist movement collapsed. Trotsky was caught
and arrested while Lenin fled in the night to safer
Thus ended fourteen months of desperate revolt
against the Tsar; the first twelve belonged to the whole people, the last two to the Marxists. Altogether,
the troops throughout the Empire had been called out more than 2,500 different times. In these battles
between the people and the troops, fourteen thousand
had been killed, approximately one thousand had
been executed, twenty thousand had been wounded
or injured, and seventy thousand had been arrested.
Trotsky's leadership in the final stages of the
revolution won him a stiff sentence from the Tsar's
court. He was convicted of revolutionary violence and
exiled to Siberia for an indefinite period. But Trotsky
never reached Siberia. He made a daring escape in midwinter and, after traveling four hundred and thirty miles in a deer-sleigh, crossed the Ural Mountains on
horseback and then escaped to Finland where he
joined Lenin and several other Marxists.
It was while Trotsky was staying in Finland that he
carefully worked out his theory of "Perpetual
Revolution." This theory advocated a continuous Communist attack on all existing governments until
they were overthrown and the dictatorship of the
proletariat established. This brought Trotsky into
nearly perfect focus with Lenin. Perhaps, without quite
realizing it, he had talked himself into becoming a fullfledged Bolshevik.
At this particular time, the Bolshevik movement was at
its lowest ebb. The Bolshevik leaders had failed in
their promises to force the Tsar to abdicate, and their
continuation of the revolution after the October Manifesto had embittered the Tsar to the point where
he had practically repudiated the Manifesto. He
allowed the people to elect a Duma (people's
assembly) but he managed to strip it of all its real
powers. The people knew they were being defrauded,
but there was no way to enforce the Manifesto without
fomenting another revolution, and at the moment this
seemed unlikely. Individual groups did continue
agitating against the Tsar and his ministers, but most
of these, like the Bolshevik leaders, were forced to
flee to Western Europe for safety.
To rejuvenate the dwindling influence of the Bolshevik
party, Lenin began holding a series of meetings. At
one of these conclaves, a new revolutionary figure
appeared on the scene. It was Joseph Stalin. Stalin
came as an obscure delegate from a small Bolshevik
group in Transcaucasia. Lenin immediately
recognized him as a true revolutionary member of the
peasant class -- a rough, unrelenting, two-listed man
of ruthless action. Lenin had a place for such a
personality and therefore enlisted Stalin in his service.
This brings us to the third important personality who
figured prominently in the revolutionary movement in Russia.
Joseph Stalin, as a young Bolshevik:"To choose one's victim,
to prepare one's plans minutely, to stake an implacable vengeance,
and then go to bed ... there is nothing sweeter in the world."
Background of Joseph Stalin
Joseph Stalin was originally named Djugashvili. He was born December 21, 1879, in the little town of Gori
near the border of Turkey. Today the humble wooden
house which first sheltered him has been made into a
national monument with a marble canopy covering it.
Stalin's father was a shoemaker with an addiction for
alcohol which eventually cost him his life. Stalin was
only eleven years old when his father died. Thereafter,
Stalin's mother washed, scrubbed, sewed, and baked
to earn enough money to put Stalin through school.
Since his mother wanted him to be a priest, he was
enrolled in the nearby theological seminary at Tiflis.
enrolled in the nearby theological seminary at Tiflis.
As he learned his way around, Stalin discovered that
the seminary was honeycombed with secret
societies. Many of them were fostering the atheistic writings of Feuerbach and Bauer and the
revolutionary writings of Marx and Engels. Before long
Stalin convinced himself that he had a preference for
revolution rather than religion and he therefore
became vigorously active in the clandestine
organizations which existed among the students of
the seminary. He continued these activities for nearly
three years, but he was finally exposed in May, 1899,
and was expelled from the seminary for "lack of
religious vocation."
Once he joined the outside world, Stalin spent his full
time as a professional Marxist revolutionary. He
organized strikes, conducted illegal May Day
festivities, and finally fled to Batumi where he became
the principal labor agitator for the Social-Democratic
party. Eventually he was arrested and after remaining
in prison until 1903, he was sentenced to three years
of exile in Siberia.
He was still in Siberia when he heard about the split
between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Stalin
almost instinctively felt himself to be a hard-core
Bolshevik and after successfully escaping from
Siberia the following year, he returned to Tiflis and
became the leader of the Transcaucasian Bolsheviks. During the Revolution of 1905 he led an abortive
revolution in his home province of Georgia and then
departed immediately for Finland to attend a
Bolshevik conference and make contact with Lenin.
From then on Stalin remained the aide-de-camp to
Lenin whom he deeply admired. It was not long before
his zeal for the Communist cause began to forcefully manifest itself.
Stalin Engages in Criminal Activities
In the summer of 1907 Joseph Stalin held a secret meeting with Lenin in Berlin. Afterwards he returned
to Tiflis and organized a holdup. It was no mere Robin Hood adventure to steal money from the rich, but a major gangster operation with complete disregard for
the lives of men, women, and children in Stalin's own
A powerful bomb was thrown in front of a convoy
carrying money from the post office to the Tiflis
Branch of the State Bank. The bomb destroyed the
horses pulling the carriage, killed several by-standers,
and wounded more than fifty children and adults. In the
hysteria which followed, the moneybags containing
341,000 rubles (about $170,000) were snatched from
the carriage by the bomb-throwers and hurriedly
carried away.
The crime reflected such complete disregard for
human life that authorities both inside and outside of
Russia attempted to run down every possible clue
which would disclose the identities of the criminals.
Finally, the money was found in the possession of a
close associate of Stalin named Maxim Litvinov (the man Stalin later sent to the United States in 1933 to
seek U.S. recognition for Soviet Russia). Litvinov and
a companion were arrested in Paris by the French
authorities when they tried to change the rubles into
francs before sending the money on to Lenin. Details
of the crime were finally unraveled by the authorities,
and the names of original perpetrators were
disclosed. Nevertheless, Stalin succeeded in
remaining at large for several more years and
continued his revolutionary activities.
Stalin as a Union Organizer, Writer
and Bolshevik Leader
The years 1907-1913 were pick-and-shovel years for
Joseph Stalin. No one could accuse him of being merely an "intellectual Communist" as they
sometimes described Lenin. Stalin learned every trick
of propaganda, pressure politics, mass
communications, strike techniques and labor
agitation. Some of his most significant experiences
occurred in the highly active industrial district at Baku.
There he was assigned to organize tens of thousands
of oil well and refinery workers. To do this he set up a
triple-system of legal, semi-legal, and totally illegal
organizations. He imposed his leadership so
completely on the workers in this large industrial
center that he was able to organize a powerful
industrial soviet (workers' council) dominated from top
to bottom by his own loyal Bolshevik colleagues.
Stalin was never very effective as a speaker because
of his strong Georgian accent, but between 1907 and
1913, he became proficient as a revolutionary writer.
For awhile he edited a Socialist newspaper in Tiflis
called Dio (Time) in which he aroused astonishment
even among Bolsheviks because of his bitterness in
attacking the Mensheviks. In 1910 he went to St.
Petersburg (now Leningrad) and wrote for the Social
Democrat, the Zvezda (Star), and later for Pravda
(Truth). It was in these periodicals that Joseph
Djugashvili first became known by his pen name,
"Man of Steel," or Stalin.
In 1912 Stalin received special recognition when
Lenin broke away completely from the Social
Democrats and set up an independent Bolshevik
Party. In the new organization Lenin appointed Stalin
to the Central Committee.
The very next year, however, Stalin's career was
interrupted when he was arrested and sent to Siberia.
For Stalin it was an old story. Since 1903 he had
been arrested eight times, exiled seven times, and
escaped six times. But there was to be no escape on
this latest arrest. He was sent to one of the most
remote regions of Siberia.
With the arrival of World War I, Stalin had no particular
desire to escape. He told his friends he would relax
and enjoy his "vacation" in Siberia since escape
might result in his being drafted into the armed
services. He wanted no part of military service.
The Role of Russia in World War I
It will be recalled that the year 1914 found all the major
nations of Europe flexing their military muscles. It was
inevitable that the slightest miscalculation in
diplomatic relations might turn loose a churning
volcano of human destruction. The spark in the
powder keg was the assassination of the heir to the
Austria-Hungarian throne by a member of a Serbian
secret society. This occurred June 28, 1914.
Austria-Hungary had been looking for an excuse to
take over Serbia, and therefore her troops began marching in. This angered the Tsar because Serbia was on his own calendar of conquest so he declared war on Austria-Hungary. Germany came to the
defense of Austria-Hungary and declared war on Russia. At the time France was an ally of Russia, so Germany used this as an excuse to declare war on
France. This brought England into the War as an ally
of France. Thus the machine of war began to roll.
From the point of view of the Russian Tsar, the First
World War did not come as any particular surprise.
For years he had been busily preparing for it by
building a powerful military machine. Nevertheless,
the Russian people were not psychologically
prepared for war.
For nearly a decade there had been a growing
tension between the people and the Tsar because he
had failed to provide them with the constitutional
government which he had promised in the October Manifesto of 1905. Of course, when the people were
threatened by attack at the outbreak of World War I,
they instinctively banded together in the common
defense, and Tsar Nicholas promptly took this as an
omen that they would support him loyally throughout
the conflict.
But within a few months the strain of war began to tell.
By 1915 there were widespread complaints, and by
1916 the Tsar's war machine was sputtering and
jerking as it bordered on collapse. In three years Russia had mobilized more than 13,000,000 fighting men, but of these approximately 2,000,000 were
killed, approximately 4,000,000 were wounded, and
2,500,000 were taken prisoners. For 24 months the
news from the front was consistently bad. Russian
armies were pushed out of Galicia, Russian Poland,
and part of Lithuania, Serbia and the Dardanelles.
When the Ottoman Empire entered the war it cut
Russian foreign trade to a trickle and thereby isolated
Russia from the arms and munitions of her allies. Replacement troops sent to the front were often so illequipped that some of them had to pick up their rifles
from dead soldiers along the way. Lack of
ammunition often forced commanding officers to
restrict the infantry to a daily ration of no more than
four shells per gun.
At this juncture the Tsar was warned by the British
Ambassador that the whole Eastern Front might
collapse if things did not improve. Desertions from the
Russian Army] had reached scandalous proportions
and the workers and peasants were threatening
revolt. Food shortages were growing because the
government was buying grain with paper money which was practically worthless. In the cities the cost of living
had tripled while wages had risen only slightly.
But the Tsar could not see any reason for alarm. He
had ridden out the revolt of 1905; he intended to do
the same now. To demonstrate his complete
confidence in the situation, he announced that he would go to the front to cheer the troops with his
What he seemed to forget was the fact that conditions
among the people were almost identical with those which precipitated the revolution of 1905. It was far
too late to cheer the troops with the Tsar's presence
Already the reign of the Tsar was doomed. Though he
did not know it, Nicholas II was going to lose the
throne in a matter of months, and shortly thereafter,
his life.
1. From a letter ofAndrew D. White dated at Berlin, November
9, 1885, in the White Collection,Cornell University.
Chapter Six
How Russia Became a Communist
World Power
The history of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and
the twenty years that followed might well be called the modern New Testament of Marxism. The Communists
present it as their historic proof that the theories of
Marx can be carried out successfully. Interestingly
enough, however, some of the strongest proof against
Communism is also revealed in this same epic of
history. All of the pertinent facts have been brought
together in this chapter so that the student might judge
for himself.
A review of the following questions may help to
identify some of the problems which frequently arise when this period history is discussed:
Who forced the Tsar to abdicate? Where were the Communist leaders at the time? In what way was the Russian revolution of March, 1917, identical with the Russian revolution of 1905? How did Lenin get back
into Russia? Why did the German officers want to
help him?
When the national elections were held on November
25, 1917, what percentage of the people voted
against Lenin's regime?
What was Lenin's motive in taking Russia out of
World War I? Why the treaty he signed with the Germans was called "a great catastrophe for Russia"?
What happened when Lenin applied the theories of
Marx to the Russian economy? Why did Lenin order
the execution of the Tsar and his family?
What were the circumstances which forced Lenin to
abandon many of Marx's favorite theories?
Why did Lenin write from his deathbed that he hoped
Joseph Stalin would never be allowed to seize
power? What was the purpose of Stalin's first FiveYear Plan?
Why did the Communist Party in Russia try to depose
Stalin in December 1932? What saved Stalin?
Why did Stalin execute nearly all the leaders of the Communist Party? By 1938, what did Stalin say he was ready to do?
Tsar Nicholas II and his familyin their days of power. At the feet of the empress is the Tsarevitch. Back row:Grand Duchesses Anastasia, Titiana andOlga; Marie is at her father's left.
The Russian Revolution of March
It was March 8, 1917, when the swelling spirit of
revolution in Russia burst its banks and sent a flood of
political indignation streaming after the Tsar and his
regime. There was comparatively little violence. The
feeling of revolt was so universal that as soon as the
signal was given, a quarter of a million demonstrators
appeared in the streets of the capital. When the masses of demonstrators had taken over the capital,
the revolution automatically swept across the Empire.
This revolution was of vast significance to the entire
world. It will be recalled that the spring of 1917 was a
highly critical stage of World War I. The United States was just getting into the fight, and France, Britain and
Italy were almost exhausted. Because the Western
Front was barely holding together against the
onslaught of Germany and her Central Powers, the
collapse of the Eastern Front with its war machine of
several million Russians could have meant
unequivocal disaster for the Allies.
The Russian revolution also held great significance
for Germany. The Kaiser knew that if Russia withdrew
from the war the large German forces in the East
could be transferred to the West. This would have
given him a vastly superior force capable of smashing
all resistance.
But the people behind the Russian revolution never
intended to allow the Eastern Front to collapse. Their
revolt against the Tsar was to save Russia, not
destroy her. As soon as the Provisional Government
had been set up, it announced an all-out program to
create a democratic, constitutional form of
government and to press for vigorous continuation of
the war. This restored hope to the western Allies. The United States, England, France and Italy immediately
recognized the new regime and the hearts of free
people everywhere went out to the new star of
freedom which seemed to be rising over the jubilant
people of Russia.
As for the Tsar, it was difficult for him to realize just what had happened. At the beginning of the
revolution, Nicholas II categorically refused to admit
that his government had disintegrated. When the
demonstrations first began he dissolved the Duma
(the people's assembly) and ordered the troops to
disperse the crowds. Within a week, however, his
own ministers were urging him to abdicate since his
cause was hopeless.
Not until his generals also urged abdication did he
finally capitulate. He and his family were then placed
under house arrest at the imperial palace outside of
Petrograd. Although the people had suffered greatly
under his rule, it was not the intention of the
Provisional Government to kill the Tsar but to send
him and his family to England as soon as war
conditions would permit.
With the Tsar taken care of, the Provisional
Government then launched into the double task of
initiating widespread domestic reforms and, at the
same time, reassembling Russia's military strength.
At the front the troops began responding by exhibiting
a new fighting spirit, and within a month remarkable
progress was made in providing domestic reforms on
the home front. For the first time in their history, the Russian people had the prospect of a liberal
democratic regime to govern them. Prince Lvov, who
had joined the people's revolt, confidently declared:
"We should consider ourselves the happiest of men,
for our generation finds itself in the happiest period of
Russian History."
The Destruction of Russia's Plans
The Destruction of Russia's Plans
for a Democracy
The most significant thing about the abdication of the
Tsar and the setting up of the people's Provisional
Government in Russia is the simple historical fact that
the Bolsheviks, or Communists, had practically
nothing to do with it! This revolution had been initiated
by the same kind of people as those who started the
revolt against the Tsar in 1905. They represented
Russia's best people -- the liberal aristocrats, the
intellectuals, the businessmen, the millions of
peasants and the millions of workers. But the
Bolshevik leaders were nowhere in sight. Lenin was
in exile in Switzerland, Trotsky was in exile in New
York and Joseph Stalin was in prison in Siberia. Unfortunately for their future propaganda, the
Bolsheviks would never be able to take credit for the
revolution Of March, 1917, which brought about the
overthrow of the Tsar.
It was the generosity of the Provisional Government which permitted the Bolshevik leaders to return. All
political prisoners were released from Siberia and all
political exiles abroad were invited to come home. When the British heard that Lenin was being allowed
to return, they warned their Russian ally that this was a
serious mistake. As a matter of fact, the only way
Lenin was able to get back into Russia was through
the assistance of German agents. The reason for this German cooperation is readily apparent.
The Germans had become alarmed at the prospect of
a comeback among the Russian people, and they
a comeback among the Russian people, and they were looking about for some opportunity to create a
spirit of confusion and disunity within Russia's
Provisional Government. A brief conversation with
Lenin in Switzerland convinced them that he was the man to accomplish it. They, therefore, transported
Lenin and his wife and a number of Russian exiles
across Germany into Sweden. It was simple for Lenin
to proceed immediately to the Russian capital.
When Lenin arrived in Petrograd (the new name for
St. Petersburg, later changed to Leningrad), he was welcomed by the crowds of people as a sympathetic
colleague of the revolution. A military escort helped
him to the roof of an armored car where the vast
throng waited expectantly for his commendation of
their success. But when Lenin's lip-clipped words
began to stream forth, they were far from
commendatory. His inflammatory declamation literally
amounted to a new declaration of war!
He bitterly denounced the efforts of the Provisional
Government to set up a republic. He demanded a Communist dictatorship of the proletariat and called
for a struggle to take over the landed estates and
immediately subject the Russian people to the
economic discipline of full socialism. He denounced
all further efforts to continue the war and said an
immediate peace with Germany should be
negotiated. (He was later accused of trying to take Russia out of the war to repay his obligation to the Germans.)
It was only a matter of weeks until all Russia began
hearing the propaganda of the Bolshevik leaders as
they echoed the program which Lenin had laid down
in his Petrograd speech. Stalin, who was back from
Siberia, wrote articles in the new Communist paper
urging counterrevolution. Trotsky, who had returned
from New York, used his brilliant oratory to incite the
labor unions and the military forces to overthrow the
Provisional Government. "Peace, Land and Bread," was the Bolshevik slogan. Under the circumstances,
this propaganda was bound to have some appeal.
Asuccessful attempt bythe Russian Provisional Government
to put down a Communist uprising in Petrograd during July, 1917. As a result of this Communist defeat, Lenin fled to save his life.
The Provisional Government tried to warn the people
against the tempting promises of the Bolsheviks, but
the government was beginning to lose prestige
because the masses had been demanding reforms
faster than the new regime could provide them. This
tended to discredit the warning voices of government
leaders. In fact, during July, 1917, the outbreaks
among the peasants, workers and troops were again
beginning to crop out and Lenin concluded that the
time to strike was ripe. He assumed that since the Russian Army was desperately involved in trying to
hold back the German forces at the front it would not
be difficult to overcome the home guard of old men
and young boys. However, in this he miscalculated. When Lenin struck out with his Bolshevik forces, the
Provisional Government not only suppressed the
uprising, but forced Lenin to flee to Finland to save his
From then on Lenin proceeded more cautiously. He
allowed his subordinates to organize fresh
revolutionary forces while he directed the work from
abroad. One of these subordinates was Trotsky who
had now openly identified himself with the Bolsheviks
and was rapidly rising to the number two position. He was assigned the task of organizing the "Red Guard"
of armed insurrectionists among the labor unions, the
Army, the Navy and the peasants.
By early October, Lenin felt it was safe to return to Russia and on November 7, he made the fateful
decision to commence an all-out revolution against
the Provisional Government. The revolution began when Lenin ordered Trotsky to have the Red Guard
open fire on the Winter Palace and try to seize all
other strongholds of the government. Under fierce
attack, these centers soon surrendered, and nearly all
the officials of the Provisional Government were
captured. This was the beginning of what Communist
writers call "the ten days that shook the world."
FirstRussian photo of the Bolshevik revolution to reach
the United States. This shows victorious Communist leaders
addressing a large crowd in Moscowafter seizure of power.
Before many weeks the use of force and violence
permitted the Bolsheviks to seize power in nearly all
important cities. The regular army could not come to
the assistance of the Provisional Government and
consequently the people found themselves attacked
by the Bolshevik anarchists at a time when they had
practically no forces whatever with which to resist. By
the middle of December the Bolsheviks were putting
down the last remnants of stubborn resistance,
although long before this the masses of the people
knew that their dreams for a democracy were dead.
Russia Repudiates Communism at
Russia Repudiates Communism at
the Polls
Before the Provisional Government had been
overthrown it had set November 25 as the date for a
national election in order to create a people's
assembly or congress. The Bolsheviks themselves
had made the most noise in demanding this election
and therefore Lenin did not dare postpone it even
though it came while he was still consolidating his
power. The election was held as scheduled.
The results were catastrophic insofar as Lenin's
dream of popular backing was concerned. Over 75
percent of the population voted against him. Obviously this meant that the people's elected
representatives would be opposed to the Bolshevik
regime; therefore when these representatives
convened on January 18, 1918, Lenin had already
decided what to do.
He demanded that the people's congress turn over all
their legislative functions to the Bolshevik-controlled
"Congress of the Soviets" and then vote to dissolve
themselves. This, of course, was so illegal and
ridiculous, that they would not hear of it. Lenin
therefore invoked his "means of last resort" -- force.
Early the next morning, armed guards entered the meeting hall and ordered the delegates to adjourn. As
the delegates looked at the bristling rifles, they knew
there was no alternative. Reluctantly, they left.
This illegal act sounded the death knell for democracy
in Russia. Nevertheless, Lenin knew this act of
ruthless expediency had given his enemies potent
propaganda to discredit him. It was resolved that all
future coups by Red forces would provide the illusion
of being achieved through normal democratic
processes. For the moment, however, the damage was done. The Communists had overthrown the
nearest thing to representative government the Russians had ever known. Now the people would
learn something about the Dictatorship of the
Lenin Takes Russia Out of the War
It was one of Lenin's first ambitions to wipe out the
Eastern Front and take Russia out of the war. In
addition to fulfilling any promises he might have made
to the Germans, Lenin had a highly important reason
of his own for this action. He believed that the strain of
the war would make it possible to set off a series of
Communist revolutions in every major capitalist
nation. Therefore, he wanted to disentangle Russia
from the conflict in order to get her prepared for her
role as the "Motherland of Communism." This would
give him a chance to consolidate his power in Russia
and then to supervise the revolutions in the war-weary
capitalist nations so as to bring the whole world under
the dictatorship of the proletariat within a very short
However, getting Russia out of the war did not prove
to be an easy task. For months the Russian armies
had been retreating in the face of superior military
forces. Consequently, when Lenin finally obtained an
armistice with the Central Powers and offered to
negotiate a peaceful settlement, they treated him as
the defeated leader of a conquered nation. The
demands which Germany made upon Russia were
outrageous. Lenin hesitated. To further persuade him,
the Germans marched even deeper into Russian
territory, and were soon threatening the very precincts
of Petrograd. Lenin hurriedly moved his government
to Moscow and then did something which was deeply
humiliating to a Communist revolutionary; he
appealed to Russia's old capitalist allies -- France,
England and the United States -- for help.
He was further humiliated when these countries
completely ignored him. Lenin had destroyed the
balance of the Allied defense when he pulled the Russian armies out of the conflict. Now these nations were so busy preparing to defend themselves against
the all-out German offensive being planned for the
spring that they had neither the desire nor the means
to help Lenin out of his self-inflicted predicament.
Like the shrewd political gambler that he was, Lenin
now weighed his chances for survival in the balance
and decided to force his own party to support him in
accepting the indecent demands of the Central
Powers. Even the iron-disciplined members of the
ruling committee of the Bolshevik Party balked at
Lenin's proposal, but, nevertheless, he finally forced it
through with a vote of seven to four.
As a result, a settlement was signed between Russia
and the Central Powers on March 3, 1918, which has
become known as the notorious treaty of BrestLitovsk.
In it, Lenin accepted terms which took from the Russian Empire 62,000,000 people, 1,267,000
square miles of her arable lands, 26 percent of her
railroads, 33 percent of her factories, 75 percent of
her coal mines and 75 percent of her iron mines. In
addition to this, Lenin promised that Russia would
pay the Central Powers 1 1/2 billion dollars in
Such was to be the end of a war that had cost the Russian people 8 1/2 million casualties.
The First Attempt to Communize
With Russia out of the war, Lenin now felt sufficient
confidence to subordinate the whole Russian
economy to the theories of Communism. He
confiscated all industry from private owners and set it
up under government operation. He seized all land which belonged to the aristocracy, the Tsar and the
church. He also seized all the livestock and
implements which ordinarily served this land. He then
abolished wages and replaced them with direct
payment "in kind." This saddled Russia with a
sluggish and primitive barter system. He ordered all
domestic goods to be rationed among the people
according to their class. For example, a worker or
soldier was allocated thirty-five pounds of bread, while a nonworker, such as a manager, received only
twelve. Lenin also made all labor subject to mobilization. People with technical skills could be
compelled to accept any work assigned to them. The
selling of retail goods was taken over by the
As for the peasants, Lenin distributed the confiscated
land to them, but required them to work the land without hiring any help and without selling any of the
produce. It was all to go to the government.
Furthermore, the land could not be sold, leased nor mortgaged.
In March, 1918, the Bolsheviks changed their name to
the "Russian Communist Party."
But from the very beginning the Russian people did
not take well to the new order. Without any personal
incentive among the workers, production on the farm
and in the factory dwindled to a trickle. The factories were soon down to 13 percent of what they had been
producing before the war started, and the farmers cut
their production in half. Black markets began to
flourish. Workers often stole goods from the factories
to exchange for food which the peasants secretly withheld from the government. Before long, the
peasants were holding back more than one-third of
their crops.
As might have been expected, this decomposition of
the Russian economy brought down upon the heads
of the people all the wrath and frustration of the
Bolshevik leaders. Every terror method known was
used to force the people to produce. This led to
Bolshevik atrocities. Fiftybodies of communityleaders
of Wesenburg are exhumed from a lake after being shot and mutilated
in reprisal for the death of two Communists.
White Russians retaliate byhanging suspected Bolsheviks. During the Civil War several million lost their lives.
Bolsheviks use a confiscated church for a wheat granary.
This was part of the Red campaign to discourage religious worship.
During the summer of 1918, violent civil war broke out
as the "White Guard" vowed they would overthrow the Reds and free the Russian people. The western Allied
Nations, though hard-pressed themselves, were
sympathetic to this movement and sent supplies,
equipment and even what troops they could spare to
help release the Russian people from the Bolshevik
Trotskyaddresses a contingent of the Red Armywhich
he ultimatelybuilt up to a force of five million men.
Lenin knew this was a crisis of the highest order. He
therefore decided to strike back in three different
directions simultaneously. To resist organized military
groups, he authorized Trotsky to forcibly mobilize a Red Army which ultimately totaled five million. To
resist the people's anti-Bolshevik sentiment and
refusal to work, he organized the secret police or
Cheka. This body could investigate arrest, adjudicate
and execute suspected persons. Authorities state that
during the civil war, literally tens of thousands went
down before its firing squads. Finally, Lenin struck out
at the Tsar. To prevent any possibility of a new monarchial party being developed, he had the Tsar,
the Empress, their children and all their retainers shot
to death at Yekaterinburg and their bodies completely
destroyed. This mass assassination occurred July 16,
Six weeks later the scalding vengeance of the White Russians nearly cost Lenin his life. The Bolshevik
aristocracy was caught under vulnerable
circumstances and a volley of rifle fire assassinated
the Cheka chief and seriously wounded Lenin. To
avenge itself, the Cheka summarily executed 500
When the end of World War I came on November 11,
1918, it had little effect on the situation in Russia. The
civil war continued with even greater violence, and the
Bolsheviks redoubled their efforts to communize Russia. Lenin continued to set up Soviets or workers'
councils, in every part of the empire, and these
Soviets in turn sent delegates to the supreme Soviet
at the capital. Through the channels of this Bolshevikdominated labor-union empire, Lenin carried out his
policies. Behind the Soviets stood the enforcing
power of the Red Army, and the terror of the Cheka
secret police.
In spite of all these coercive methods, however, Lenin
eventually discovered he was fighting a losing battle.
For a while he took courage from the fact that United
States, England, France and Japan began withdrawing their troops and supplies under the
League of Nations policy of "self-determination for all
peoples," but the ferocious fighting of the White Russians continued.
The breaking point for Lenin came in 1921-22 when
the economic inefficiency of the Bolshevik regime was compounded by a disastrous famine. There was
a complete crop failure along the Volga -- the bread
basket of Russia. Nikolaus Basaeches wrote: "No
one who was ever in that famine area, no one who
saw those starving and brutalized people, will ever
forget the spectacle. Cannibalism was common. The
despairing people crept about, emaciated, like brown mummies.... When those hordes fell upon an
unprepared village, they were apt to massacre every
living person."
Packs of wild, orphaned children roamed like hungry wolves through cities and country sides. It is
estimated that during the year 1922, over 33 million Russians were starving, and 5 million died. The
people of the United States were so shocked by this
almost inconceivable amount of human suffering that
they raised funds for the Hoover Commission to feed
over 10 million Russians during 1922.
The End of a Communist Dream
Even before this disaster, however, Lenin had forced
himself to admit that he had assigned his country an
impossible task. His Bolshevik revolution had not
brought peace to Russia, but a terrible civil war in which 28 million Russians had lost their lives. The
principles of socialism which Lenin had forced upon
the people had not brought increased production as Marx had promised, but had reduced production to a
point where even in normal times it would not
adequately clothe nor feed half the people.
It was under these circumstances and in the light of
these facts that Lenin acknowledged defeat and
ordered a retreat. As early as 1921 he announced
that there would be a "New Economic Program" --
afterwards referred to as the NEP.
This humiliating reversal of policy was adopted by the Communists to keep from being dethroned. Lenin
brought back the payment of wages to workers, which
immediately generated the circulation of money in
place of the old barter system. In place of the
government trading centers, he allowed private
concerns to begin buying and selling so that in less
than a year three-fourths of all retail distribution was
back in private hands. He violated the sanctity of
Marx's memory by even encouraging the peasants to
lease additional land and hire other peasants to work
for them. He also tried to encourage private initiative
by promising the peasants they could sell most of
their grain on the open market instead of having it
seized by agents of the government as in the past.
In merely a matter of months, the pauperism and
starvation of the old Communist economy began to
disappear. The law of supply and demand began to
have its effect so that private initiative commenced to
provide what the people needed. In the cities an air of
relative prosperity rapidly returned to the bleak streets
and empty shops.
The Rise of Stalin to Power
Lenin barely lived long enough to see the New
Economic Program go into effect. He had his first
stroke in 1922, and died January 20, 1924. As Lenin
saw the end drawing near, he became alarmed over
the possibility of Joseph Stalin becoming his
successor. For many years Lenin had been using
Stalin to perform tasks requiring the most ruthless methods, but now he became fearful of what might
happen if Stalin used these same methods to take
over the Communist Party.
On December 25, 1923, while lying speechless and
half-paralyzed on his deathbed, Lenin wrote the
following dramatic appeal to the members of the
Politiburo (the supreme governing council of the Communist Party, and hence, of all Russia):
"Stalin is too rude, and this fault, entirely supportable
in relations among us Communists, becomes
insupportable in the office of the General Secretary.
Therefore, I propose to the comrades to find a way to
remove Stalin from that position and appoint to it
another man who in all respects differs from Stalin ...
namely, more patients, more loyal, more polite, and more attentive to comrades, less capricious, etc. This
circumstance may seem an insignificant trifle, but I
think that from the point of view of preventing a split,
and from the point of view of the relation between
Stalin and Trotsky ... it is not a trifle, or it is such a trifle
as may acquire decisive significance."
Time proved that Lenin knew whereof he spoke.
Stalin's whole attitude toward life may be caught in a
statement which he later made as he was rising to
power: "To choose one's victim, to prepare one's
plans minutely, to stake an implacable vengeance,
and then go to bed ... there is nothing sweeter in the world."
Trotskywas purged from the Russian government byStalin
and fled to Mexico to escape assassination. Although Trotskylived
under constant guard, a killer finallygot through to him in August, 1940, and smashed his skull with an alpenstock.
By 1927 Stalin had achieved precisely what Lenin
feared he might -- the outright control of the Russian
Empire. He had not only unseated Trotsky, but had
driven from the arena every formidable source of
opposition. He had attained such complete victory in
the battle for the control of world Communism that he
now felt strong enough to try and satisfy one of his
greatest ambitions. He determined to make a second
attempt to communize Russia.
The First Five-Year Plan
The first Five-Year Plan began in 1928. It was aimed
at wiping out the prosperous independence of
businessmen and the peasant farmers who had been
thriving during the New Economic Program. Once
again there was widespread confiscation of property,
and once again the secret police began executing masses of Russians who resisted. Stalin was
determined that the Russian economy should be
immediately forced into the confines of theoretical
socialism and demonstrate to the world that it could
out-produce and out-distribute the capitalistic
industrial nations, such as the United States and
Great Britain. Within weeks, however, the Five-YearPlan had wiped out the warm glow of prosperity and
comparative abundance which Russia had known
under the NEP. Rationing was necessary and the
hated revolutionary "starvation bread" made of birch
bark had to be reintroduced.
The basic theme of the Five-Year-Plan was
collectivized industry and collectivized agriculture.
Stalin knew he would get resistance from the
prosperous peasants (called Kulaks) and he therefore
ordered a complete genocidal liquidation of the
Kulaks as a class. Some of the Kulaks destroyed all
their property, burned their homes, slaughtered their
cattle and fled toward the Caucasus mountains, but most of them were caught or died on the way. Official
reports tell how rebellious villages were leveled to the
ground by artillery fire and in one area of the Don
region, 50,000 men, women and children were
destroyed, leaving a vestige of only 2,000 people who were shipped off to central Asia, while the land which
they had cultivated for generations was taken over for
collectivized farming.
Stalin also included in the Five-Year-Plan an
acceleration of the Communist fight against religion.
By 1930 the Union of Militant Atheists had an active membership of two-and-one-half million. Churches
and cathedrals were turned into secular buildings. The Christmas festival was prohibited and the buying and
selling of Christmas trees was a criminal offense.
Sunday was eliminated as a day of worship, and workers were required to rotate their days off so that
industry would continue day and night, seven days a week.
Stalin also attempted to follow Engel's suggestion to
break up the family. All the theories of Marx and
Engels were coming to life under the dictatorship of
Joseph Stalin.
By 1930 Stalin was beginning to realize that he may
have pressed the long-suffering endurance of the
people too far. He therefore came forth with an
expression of deep anguish for the suffering masses. He blamed all the troubles on the government officers who, in their zeal, were overshooting the mark and
imposing unreasonable demands upon the people,
particularly the peasants. He wrote as though he had
just heard of the terrible misery which had overtaken
the people. But, having cleared himself for the record,
Stalin then went firmly ahead with terror tactics which made conditions more frightful than ever.
The Communist Crisis of 1932-33
By 1932 the situation had reached a crisis. The Russian people had suffered starvation, mass
executions, ruthless liquidation of the Kulak class,
suppression of all private enterprise, deportations to
Siberia and long sentences to forced labor camps.
The crimes against humanity were on a scale
comparable to the Nazi atrocities subsequently
committed at Dachau, Buchenwald, and Belsen.
In a recent biography of Stalin, Nikolaus Basseches
states that during 1932 the leaders of the Communist
Party knew they would have to dethrone Stalin or face
revolution. Even the army was about to revolt. The
Politburo held a secret meeting in December and
Stalin made a number of proposals to further
suppress the people, but this time even these men who owed their political existence to Stalin voted him
down flatly. It is reported that Stalin was so amazed by
this display of opposition that he admitted to Molotov
that perhaps he should accept defeat and resign. Molotov, however, is said to have encouraged him to
hold on a little longer to see if conditions might not
U.S. Recognition of Communist
Russia Comes at a Critical Time
Molotov was right. Future circumstances did offer
Stalin a solution to his crisis. The first thing that
happened was Hitler's rise to power in January, 1933. Hitler's strong anti-Communist policies led many
Russians to believe that there might be a war
between Russia and Germany, and they therefore
began to forget their resentment against Stalin
because of their worry over Hitler. The second factor which helped Stalin was the recognition of his Communist regime by the great leader of world
capitalism -- the United States. This last factor was a
singular development.
"There can be no question of the sincere friendliness of the American people toward the Russian people."-- Charles Evan Hughes
For sixteen years the United States had refused to
recognize Russia, and the U.S. Secretaries of State
during that period were very precise in explaining why. For example, in 1923 Secretary Charles E. Hughes declared: "There can be no question of the
sincere friendliness of the people toward the Russian
people. And there is for this very reason a strong
desire that nothing should be done (such as granting
recognition) to place the seal of approval on the
tyrannical measures that have been adopted in Russia, or to take any action which might retard the
gradual reassertion of the Russian people of their
right to live in freedom."
Acommon sight in NewYork during the 1930s when American Communists paraded through the streets with
their familiar slogan:"Defend the SovietUnion."
Many such statements over a period of years placed
Stalin on notice that if the United States were to
recognize Russia, it would require many changes in Communist policies and Communist tactics.
Therefore, early in 1933, when Stalin sent his old
comrade in arms, Maxim Litvinov, to Washington to
negotiate for U.S. recognition, he knew what the
terms would have to be. In written statements, Litvinov
promised that henceforth the USSR would not attempt
to interfere in the internal affairs of the United States;
he said the USSR would not allow its officials to use
propaganda or agitate for the overthrow of the United
States Government, and furthermore, he promised
that the USSR would not permit any group to organize
in Russia for the purpose of agitating for the
overthrow of the United States Government.
At the moment it looked as though the Communists were going to repudiate the Communist International
and world revolution. On the basis of these solemn
promises by an official of the Russian government,
recognition was extended by the United States to the USSR late in 1933. Such were the circumstances which led the U.S. to change its policy toward
Communist Russia from one of co-resistance to
But within ten months, officials of the United States
knew this nation had been defrauded. William C.
Bullitt, the first U.S. ambassador, reported from
Moscow that world revolution was on the tongue of
every Soviet official. Plans were already under way for
the Communist International (an organization to
promote world revolution) to hold its seventh
conference in Russia, even though this violated both
the letter and the spirit of the promises made by
The U.S. vigorously protested to Litvinov, but he merely shrugged his shoulders and said the USSR
had absolutely no "obligations of any kind with regard
to the Communist International." It was obvious that
conditions in Russia had changed. Stalin once more
felt secure in his dictatorship. The prestige of U.S.
recogniton had served its purpose, and the promises
of the USSR were now scraps of paper.
When the Seventh World Congress of the Communist
International convened, the United States was
denounced along with all other capitalistic countries,
and plans were openly advocated for the violent
overthrow of the U.S. Government. In fact, as we shall
see in the next chapter, at the very time Litvinov was
promising not to interfere in the domestic affairs of the United States, Soviet intelligence officers were busy
in Washington setting up elaborate spy rings in
various agencies of the government.
There were political authorities who believe the United States should have broken off diplomatic
relations with the Soviets the very moment it was
discovered that the Communist leaders were brazenly
violating their promises. But this did not happen. Diplomatic strategists at the time advocated that we
treat the Bolsheviks like big blustering boys and
overlook their delinquencies. They further rationalized
that at least we would have a listening post in Russia
by maintaining an ambassador there. It was on the
basis of this recommendation that the U.S. policy of
coexistence fell another notch. Our diplomats decided
to eat humble pie made out of apathetic tolerance for
broken promises and abject submissiveness to Communist abuse. This boosted Stalin's political
stock in Russia tremendously.
Joseph Stalin's Return to Power
When Stalin saw the outward signs of public
resentment in Russia disappearing, he felt he could
once more assume a bolder front. But a deep-seated
hatred continued to fester in the minds of the Communist Party leaders. They secretly admitted
among themselves that Stalin must be removed "for
the good of the Party." Therefore, the top
revolutionaries of Russia surreptitiously combined
their ideas on how best to do away with Stalin. Finally,
they decided the best plan was to first destroy those
immediately around him and then effect a coup. The
initial attempt was against Sergei Kirov -- a favorite of
the Man of Steel who had been officially designated
by the Politburo as Stalin's successor.
Kirov was shot and killed gangster style December 1,
1934. It is said that nothing had ever so deeply
affected Stalin as this murder. It was perfectly clear to
him what his enemies were up to and he therefore
struck back with a viciously effective blow. Lists were
published of more than one thousand persons
selected from every district in Russia and all these were summarily shot.
Stalin then directed the secret police to plunge into
every devious crevice of the party and dig and prod
until they had found out who was behind the murder of
Kirov. This was not difficult. Even many of the most
insignificant members of the Party were aware that
some of the biggest names in Russia were involved in
the conspiracy. To save their own skins they quickly
confessed. Stalin ordered the arrest of every suspect
together with their families, associates, friends and
even their correspondents.
Tens of thousands went down before firing squads in
secret executions while the more prominent officials were exhibited before the world at Stalin's famous
purge trials. In these trials Stalin's former comrades of
the revolution sought to win mercy for their families by
confessing in the most self-degrading language to all
the crimes of which they were accused, But it gained
them nothing.
The list of those publicly condemned with their
families and friends is described by Nikolaus
Basseches as involving "not only ex-leaders of the
party ... but also fully a dozen members of the Government who were still in office, and the supreme
commander of the army, the Chief of Staff, almost all
the army commanders, and in addition a
considerable number of senior officers; the Minister of
Police and the highest police officials; the Deputy
People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, almost all
the ambassadors ministers representing the Soviet
Union abroad, almost the whole of the diplomatic staff
at the Ministry in Moscow; and also highly placed
judges and members of the governments of the
federal republics."
Even Whittaker Chambers who was an American Communist spy at the time suspected that a horrible
crime against humanity was being enacted in Russia. He later wrote: "The great purge was in the most
literal sense a massacre.... This great massacre,
probably the greatest in history was deliberately
planned and executed.... Those killed have been
estimated from several hundred thousand to several million men and women. The process took about
three years, 1935-1938."
Stalin Creates a New Class
At the very end of the process came the execution of
the executioners. Since time immemorial it has been
a favorite trick of political pirates and brigands to use
a hand-picked band of followers to commit murder
and then murder the murderers to cover up the
original crime. Stalin followed the same procedure. He selected a pathological personality named Yeshov
to set up the secret police machinery for the purge
and then drew certain judges into the conspiracy.
Both police and judges faithfully performed their miserable missions on the assumption that they were
basking in the radiant light of Stalin's affection and
Only when they found themselves being flung into dirty
dungeons or facing firing squads did they realize that
Stalin's supposed affection and trust was nothing but
the figment of their own imaginations. By the
hundreds, the chiefs of secret police units, the heads
of forced labor camps and the examining judges who
had conducted the purge in every district of the USSR
found themselves sharing the fate of their victims.
Even Yeshov, whose unbalanced mind had not only
heaped cruelty and violence on Stalin's enemies but
upon their wives and children as well, now faced
extinction. He was swept up in the great final dragnet
of terror and disappeared into oblivion along with
those who had served under him.
Once Stalin had skirted the brink of political disaster
he immediately determined to consolidate his power
by the innovation of a Communist spoils system. Prior
to this time, the Communist leaders had recognized
only two classes -- the workers and the peasants.
Stalin now decided to give recognition to a new class
-- the Communist bureaucracy or official class. He
bestowed special favors on them by allowing them to
shop in "closed" distribution centers. These centers
had great quantities of items which were never
distributed to the workers. And Stalin arranged it so
that his party appointees received other favors --
dwellings, luxuries, special holidays, and special
educational opportunities for their children. This was
Stalin's way of building a new Communist Party with members who owed absolute allegiance to him.
He likewise protected them in the new constitution which he presented to the Congress of Soviets in
1936. It provided for the protection of "occupational
property." Thus the official class could not be
deprived of wages, articles of consumption, houses
nor savings. It even provided that this "occupational
property" could be bequeathed. Substantial estates
could, therefore, be accumulated by the official class
and passed on to a selected beneficiary. These gifts
of inheritance (which Communist propaganda had
denounced with vehemence for over a century) could
also be given to non-relations and in any amount without restrictions.
To further illustrate the whole change in Stalin's
attitude, he adopted a series of "reforms" which were
purely capitalistic in nature. These included payment
of interest on savings, the issuing of bonds to which
premiums were attached and the legalizing of a wider
disparity in wages. A laborer, for example, might
receive only one hundred rubles a month while a member of the official class could now get as high as
six thousand rubles per month!
All of this clearly illustrated one simple fact concerning
developments in Russia. The "have nots" of yesterday
had taken possession of the realm. Their policy was
likewise simple: to stay in power permanently and
enjoy the spoils of their conquest.
By 1938 Stalin was supremely confident of his
position. He announced that the regime had no
enemies left inside of Russia, and there was no
longer a need for terrorism or suppression. He made
it clear, however, that there must be undeviating
prosecution of the Communist program abroad and
that the acts of terrorism against the outer world of
capitalism should be accepted as necessary and
Russia was now asserting herself as a world power.
Stalin was clearly manifesting a determination to
enter the next phase of his dictatorship -- the
expansion of world Communism.
Chapter Seven
Communism in the United States
We have now traced the history of Russian Communism up to 1938. In order to appreciate what
happened after 1938 it is necessary to understand
the historical development of Communism in the United States.
The conquest of the United States by Marxist forces
has been an important part of the plan of Communist
leaders for many years: "First we will take Eastern
Europe; then the masses of Asia. Then we will
encircle the United States of America which will be
the last bastion of Capitalism. We will not have to
attack it; it will fail like an over-ripe fruit into our
hands." This clearly reflects the Marxist intent to
overthrow the United States by internal subversion.
It is sometimes difficult for us to realize how
enthusiastically encouraged the Communist leaders
have frequently felt toward the progress of their
program in the United States. The answers to the
following questions will indicate why:
Have Americans who embraced Communism
overlooked a vigorous warning from the Pilgrim
Fathers? Why are the Pilgrim Fathers described as
having practiced Communism under "the most
favorable circumstances"? What were the results?
How soon after the Russian Revolution was Communism launched in the United States? How
extensive was the first wave of Communist violence?
What was William Z. Foster's testimony under oath
concerning a Communist revolution in the United
Why was Whittaker Chambers able to furnish so many details concerning Communism in the United
States? In June, 1932, Chambers was asked to pay
the full price of being a Communist -- what was it?
How did Chambers' small daughter influence him to
abandon Communism?
What was the background of Elizabeth Bentley? How
did she happen to become the Communist "wife" of a man she did not even know?
How did Communists who were employed as Russian spies successfully clear themselves?
How would you expect the Communist leaders in Russia to react as they reviewed the U.S. list of toplevel government employees who were risking
imprisonment and disgrace to commit espionage and
otherwise carry out the orders of the Soviet leaders?
American Founding Fathers Try
One of the forgotten lessons of U.S. history is the fact
that the American founding fathers tried Communism
before they tried capitalistic free enterprise.
In 1620 when the Pilgrim Fathers landed at Plymouth,
they had already determined to establish a Communist colony. In many ways this communal
society was set up under the most favorable
circumstances. First of all, they were isolated from
outside help and were desperately motivated to make
the plan work in order to survive. Secondly, they had a
select group of religious men and women who
enjoyed a cooperative, fraternal feeling toward one
another. The Pilgrims launched their Communist
community with the most hopeful expectations. Governor William Bradford has left us a remarkable
account of what happened. The Governor reports:
"This community ... was found to breed much
confusion and discontent and retard much
employment that would have been to their benefit and
comfort. For the young men that were most able and
fit for labor and service did repine that they should
spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The
strong ... had no more in division of victuals and
clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a
quarter the other could; this was thought an injustice ...
and for men's wives to be commanded to do service
for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their
clothes, etc, they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither
could many husbands well brook it." (Note that even in
a Christian brotherhood, Communism cannot be
practiced without setting up a dictatorship.)
But the colonists would have continued to endure Communism if it had only been productive. The thing which worried Governor Bradford was the fact that the
total amount of production under this communal
arrangement was so low that the colonists were faced with starvation. Therefore, he says:
"At length, after much debate ... the governor gave way that they should set corn every man for his own
purpose, and in that regard trust to themselves ... and
so assigned to every family a parcel of land according
to the proportion of their number."
Once a family was given land and corn they had to
plant, cultivate and harvest it or suffer the
consequences. The Governor wanted the people to
continue living together as a society of friends but
communal production was to be replaced by private,
free enterprise production. After one year the Governor was able to say:
"This had very good success; for it made all hands
very industrious, so that much more corn was planted
than otherwise would have been.... The women now
went willing into the fields, and took their little ones
with them to set corn, which before would allege weakness and inability; who to have compelled would
have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
The Pilgrim Fathers had discovered the great human
secret that a man will compel himself to go ever so much farther than he will permit anyone else to
compel him to go. As Governor Bradford thought
about their efforts to live in a Communist society, he wrote down this conclusion:
"The experience that was had in this common cause
and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst
godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of
that conceit of Plato and other ancients -- applauded
by some in later times -- that the taking away of
property, and bringing it into a commonwealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were
wiser thanGod."1
It becomes apparent that Governor Bradford
concluded that Communism is not only inefficient but
that it is unnatural and in violation of the laws of God.
This may raise a question in the minds of some
students who have heard that Communism provides
the most ideal means of practicing the basic
principles of Christianity. Elsewhere, we have
considered the historical background of this
It is interesting that after the pilgrim fathers tried
communism they abandoned it in favor of a free
enterprise type of capitalism which, over the
centuries, has become more highly developed in the
united states than in any other nation. In its earliest
stages this system was described as a heartless,
selfish institution, but economists have pointed out
that after a slow and painful evolution it has finally
developed into a social-economic tool which has thus
far produced more wealth and distributed it more
uniformly among the people of this land than any
system modern men have tried.3 The evolutionary
process of further improving and further adapting
capitalism to the needs of a highly industrialized
society is still going on.
Marxism Comes to the United States
When the Bolshevik Revolution took place in Russia
in 1917, it held a particular interest for a certain group
of Americans. This was the left wing faction of the
Socialist Party. For years, the Socialists had been
trying to get the Federal Government to take over all major industries and socialize the country, but this
attempt at peaceful legislative reform had failed. Then
suddenly, in November, 1917, these people heard
that the Russian Bolsheviks had used revolutionary
violence to seize power and had thereafter socialized
their country overnight.
This was promptly accepted by the left wing Socialists
as the formula for America. They immediately
determined to form a Communist party and use
violent revolutionary activity to sovietize America at
the earliest possible date. They were greatly
encouraged in this venture by a man named John Reed, a journalist, who had recently returned from
Russia with glowing enthusiasm for the revolution and world Communism.
This group made contact with Moscow and was
invited to send delegates to Russia in March, 1919, to
help form the Third International (copied after Marx's
First International to promote world revolution). When
they returned home they started their campaign. John Reed used the columns of the "New York Communist"
to agitate the workers to revolt. The Communist ranks were swelled by members of the old I.W.W.
(International Workers of the World) who gravitated to
the new movement with suggestions that the party members learn to use the techniques of sabotage
and violence which the I.W.W. had employed during
World War I.
Further encouragement came to the movement when
the Russian Communist Party sent over an official
representative of the Soviet Government to help
organize a full-fledged Bolshevik program. His name was C.A. Martens. He brought along substantial
quantities of money to spend in building cells inside
the American labor unions and the U.S. armed forces.
It was not enough that the Communists should save
the proletariat of Russia; Comrade Martens assured
all who heard him that his mission from Moscow was
to free the down-trodden workers of capitalistic
America. As the movement progressed, American
representatives were sent to Russia to get
permission to set up the "Communist Labor Party of
the United States" as a branch of the Russiansponsored Communist International (organization for world revolution). Later the word "Labor" was
The officers of the new Communist Party signed the
"Twenty-one Conditions of Admission" which were to
embarrass them many years later when the Party was
ordered to register in 1952 as an agency under the
control of the Soviet Union.
Here are typical commitments from the "Twenty-one Conditions of Admission":
"The Communist Party (of the USA) must carry on a
clear-cut program of propaganda for the hindering of
the transportation of munitions of war to the enemies
of the Soviet Republic."
"The program (of the U.S. Communist Party) must be
sanctioned by the regular congress of the Communist
"All decisions of the Communist International ... are
binding upon all parties belonging to the Communist
International (which would include the U.S. Communist
"The duty of spreading Communist ideas includes the
special obligation to carry on a vigorous and
systematic propaganda in the Army. Where this
systematic propaganda in the Army. Where this
agitation is forbidden by exceptional laws, it is to be
carried on illegally."
"Every party wishing to belong to the Communist
International must systematically and persistently
develop a Communist agitation within the tradeunions."
It was basic commitments such as these which led the U.S. Subversive Activities Control Board to make the
following statement in 1953 after extended hearings:
"We find upon the whole record that the evidence
preponderantly establishes that Respondent's leaders
(leaders of the Communist Party, USA) and its members consider the allegiance they owe to the United States as subordinate to their loyalty and
obligations to the Soviet Union."4
The First Wave of Communist
Violence Strikes the United States
Beginning April 28, 1919, a series of 36 bombs were
discovered in the mails addressed to such persons
as the Attorney General, Justice Holmes of the
Supreme Court, J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller
and similar persons of prominence. One of the bombs
got through to the home of Senator Hardwick who had
been trying to shut off the migration of Bolsheviks to
the U.S. A servant opened the package and the bomb
exploded, blowing off her hands.
On September 16, 1920, a large bomb was carried in
a horse-drawn carriage to the corner of Broad and
Wall Streets in New York City -- the vortex of
American capitalism. The vehicle was brought to a
halt across the street from the un-ostentatious threestory limestone building occupied by the firm of J.P. Morgan and Company.
Suddenly a great roar went up from the carriage, and
blue-white flame shot into the sky. The bomb
exploded with tremendous violence, killing thirty
people outright and injuring hundreds more. It wrecked the interior of the Morgan offices, smashed windows for blocks around and shot an iron slug
through a window on the thirty-fourth floor of the
Equitable Building.
These acts of murder and violence created a
blistering resentment against the Bolsheviks in every
part of the United States. Occasionally counterviolence was used by aroused citizens in retaliation. Numerous arrests were made by the AttorneyGeneral
and finally a whole shipload of Bolshevik aliens and
Communist leaders were deported to Russia via
Finland on the S.S. Buford. Aboard the boat was the
notorious Emma Goldman whose anarchist speeches
a quarter of a century earlier had induced Leon Czolgosz to assassinate President McKinley. Little
did she know that in twenty-four months she would not
only repudiate Lenin and his Bolsheviks but that by
1940 her great last hope would be to die in the United
William Z. Foster Launches the
Communist Labor Union Drive
Few names among Communist leaders today are
better known to the American public than the name of
William Z. Foster. He was a charter member of the
party in the United States and was the person
designated by the party to take over the U.S. labor
unions. Most of the money for the campaign came
from Moscow where the Profintern (Red International
of Trade Unions) had received $1,000,000 from the
Soviet Government to help spread Communism in the
labor unions of other nations.
Foster's drive hit the labor front soon after the
armistice, when the workers were already in a state of
agitation resulting from wartime conditions. Foster
found little difficulty in sparking strikes in several
important industries and even where he had nothing
to do with a strike he was often given the credit. As a
result, many people began to identify their pro-labor
sympathies with Communism without completely
realizing it.
The coal miners were believed to have come under
Foster's influence when they voted enthusiastically to
have the coal industry nationalized and a similar label
seemed to attach itself to the steel strike because
Foster was very much in evidence as an agitator and
promoter of the strike. Many people knew that both
the coal miners and the steel workers had many
legitimate reasons for striking and to them the fact
that Foster and his Communist associates seized this
opportunity to worm their way into the labor movement
seemed of little importance.
But William Z. Foster never really concealed his
fundamental ambition to overthrow the United States
government by violence and subordinate the
American laborer (as well as every other American) to
the mandates of a Communist dictatorship copied
after the Russian pattern. In fact, Mr. Foster visualized
himself as the coming dictator. He was the Communist candidate for President on two occasions
and wrote a book called Toward Soviet America ,
telling just how the Communists would take over.
When a Congressional committee placed him under
oath and asked him about Communism, he was
voluble and frank:
The Chairman: "Do the Communists in this country
advocate world revolution?"
Mr. Foster: "Yes."
The Chairman: "Do they (the Communists) advocate
revolution in this country?"
Mr. Foster: "I have stated that the Communists
advocate abolition of the capitalist system in this
country and every other country...."
The Chairman: "Now, are the Communists in this
country opposed to our republican form of
Mr. Foster: "The capitalist Democracy -- most
The Chairman: "What you advocate is a change of
our republican form of government and the
substituting of the soviet form of government?
Mr. Foster: "I have stated that a number of times."
The Chairman: "Now, if I understand you, the workers
in this country look upon the Soviet Union as their
country; is that right?"
Mr. Foster: "The more advanced workers do."
The Chairman: "They look upon the Soviet flag as
their flag?"
Mr. Foster: "The workers of this country and the workers of every country have only one flag and that is
the red flag."
The Chairman: "... If they had to choose between the
red flag and the American flag, I take it from you that
you would choose the red flag, is that correct?"
Mr. Foster: "I have stated my answer."
The Chairman: "I don't want to force you to answer if it
embarrasses you, Mr. Foster."
Mr. Foster: "It does not embarrass me at all. I stated
very clearly the red flag is the flag of the revolutionary
class, and we are part of the revolutionary class."5
From 1921 to 1924, members of the Communist
Party sought to avoid arrest by operating
underground, but when the wartime emergency acts were repealed the Communist leaders gradually
surfaced again and continued their campaign for a
revolution to overthrow the United States government.
However, during the next few years the general
psychology of the country was not particularly security
conscious. It was an era of fads, frivolity and general
post-war frenzy. The national scene was entirely too
prosperous and intoxicating to worry about a few
fanatic-minded men who wanted to rule the world.
Somehow or other the word "Communist" began to
have a far-away flavor, and people jokingly spoke of
the former years of bomb-throwing, strikes, arrests
and deportations as the days of "the great Red
However, a fertile field for future Communist
conquests was being developed among the very
people who feared it least. The United States was
going sophisticated in an atmosphere of half-baked
intellectualism. Pedestals of the past crumbled to the
cry of scandal and the rattling of closeted skeletons.
An age of daring debunking had arrived. At the time
few people realized that the economic and spiritual
collapse toward which the nation was drifting would
produce an intellectual revolt that would permit the
agents of Communism to propel them into every
echelon of American society -- including some of the
highest offices of the United States Government. This
brings us to the story of Whittaker Chambers.
Because Chambers was converted to Communism
during this period and worked himself up to the
highest levels of intrigue as a leader of Russian
espionage, his disclosures give a sweeping
panoramic picture of the growth of Communism in the United States from 1925-2938.
The Growth of U.S. Communism as
Seen by Whittaker Chambers
A brief review of Whittaker Chambers' conversion to Communism will perhaps reveal an evolutionary
pattern which was followed by a considerable number
of young American intellectuals during the NineteenTwenties and early Thirties.
Twenties and early Thirties.
Whittaker Chambers was raised on Long Island not
far from suburban New York. In the Chambers home was an impersonal and disinterested father (a
newspaper illustrator), an over-loving and therefore
overbearing mother (who had formerly been an
actress), an insane grandmother and a younger
brother toward whom Chambers felt no particular
fraternal affection.
Both Chambers and his younger brother came to maturity during the hectic post-war period and, like many people of their time, both became moral and
spiritual casualties. Chambers' younger brother
returned from college cynical and disillusioned. He
became an alcoholic and finally committed suicide.
The whole family seemed to have degenerated into a
pattern of life which was precisely the mess of
purposeless Pottage that Marx and Engels had
declared it to be. Whittaker Chambers describes his
own experiences as follows:
"When I entered (college shortly after World War I) I was a conservative in my view of life and politics, and
I was undergoing a religious experience. By the time I
left, entirely by my own choice, I was no longer a
conservative and I had no religion. 1 had published in
a campus literary magazine an atheist playlet.... The
same year, I went to Europe and saw Germany in the manic throes of defeat. I returned to Columbia, this
time paying my own way. In 1925, I voluntarily withdrew for the express purpose of joining the Communist Party. For I had come to believe that the
world we live in was dying, that only surgery could now
save the wreckage of mankind, and that the
Communist Party was history's surgeon."6
Chambers went to work for Communism in real
earnest. He became co-editor of The Textile Worker,
wrote for the Daily Worker, took a Communist "wife"
and learned the strike tactics of trade union violence. He writes that during this period, "I first learned that
the Communist Party employed gangsters against the
fur bosses in certain strikes.... I first learned how
Communist union members would lead their own
gangs of strikers into scab shops and in a few moments slash to pieces with their sharp-hooked fur
knives thousands of dollars’ worth of mink skins."7
It was his intention to make the Communist program
the permanent pattern of his life. Before long,
however, his Communist "wife" left him to go her own way and Chambers felt it would be more to his liking
to make his next union (which took place in 1931) an
official "bourgeois marriage" at some city hall. At this
stage, Chambers would never have guessed that he
also had other sensibilities which would one day take
him out of Communism and make him senior editor of
Time magazine at a salary of around $30,000 per
In 1928, Chambers saw the first series of purges in
the American Communist Party. For several years,
the party had been dominated by Charles E. Ruthenburg, "the American Lenin." When Ruthenburg
suddenly died there was a mad scramble for power.
Jay Lovestone came out on top with William Z. Foster
representing a small, noisy minority. But soon
Lovestone made a serious political mistake. He
sided with one of Stalin's most powerful Russian
opponents. Nikolai Bukharin, who stood for a less
violent program than Stalin had in mind.
Lovestone and William Z. Foster were summoned to Moscow. When they returned, Lovestone was a
broken man. He had been called a traitor by Stalin
and thrown out of the party. Stalin had named Foster
the heir to the throne. The next step was to force every member of the party in the United States to support
Foster's radical program or be expelled. Most
Communists picked up the new set of signals from
Moscow and immediately swore allegiance to Foster.
But not so with Chambers. It looked to him as though
Stalin were behaving exactly like a Fascist dictator by
forcing the majority of the American Communists to
follow leadership they had already voted against. Chambers stopped being active in the party.
For two years, by his own choice, Chambers
remained outside the regular ranks. He was never
expelled, nor did his loyalty to Communism change,
but he deeply resented Stalin. The entire situation was changed, however, by the great depression. Chambers' sympathies for the unemployed once more drew him back toward the party program. He
also felt forced to admit that from all appearances the
long-predicted collapse of American capitalism had
In the spirit of the times, Chambers wrote a story
called, "Can You Hear the Voices?" It was a great
success. It was made into a play, published as a
pamphlet and hailed by Moscow as splendid
revolutionary literature. The next thing Chambers
knew he was being feted by the American Communist
Party as though he had never left it. Chambers soon went back to work for the revolution.
It was in June, 1932, that Chambers was asked to
pay the full price of being a Communist. The Party
nominated him to serve as a spy against the United
States in the employment of the Soviet Military
Intelligence. For the sake of his wife Chambers tried
to get out of this assignment, but a member of the Central Committee in New York told him, "You have
no choice."
Chambers soon found himself under the iron
discipline of the Russian espionage apparatus.
Because Communism had become his faith, Chambers blindly followed instructions. He became
expert in the conspiratorial techniques of clandestine meetings, writing secret documents, shaking off
followers, trusting no one, being available day and
night at the beck and call of superiors.
Before long Chambers was assigned to be the key
contact man for Russia's most important spy cell in Washington, D.C. Chambers has described his
espionage associations with the following persons who were later to become top officials in the United
States Government:
1. Alger Hiss, whom Chambers says became a close
personal friend. Hiss started out in the Department of
Agriculture, and then served on the Special Senate Committee investigating the munitions industry. For
awhile he served in the Department of Justice and
then went to the State Department. There he made a meteoric rise, serving as Director of the highly
important office of Political Affairs. He served as
advisor to President Roosevelt at Yalta and as
SecretaryGeneral of the International Assembly which
created the United Nations.
2. Harry Dexter White, who later became Assistant
Secretary of the United States Treasury and author of
the Morgenthau Plan.
3. John J. Abt, who served in the Department of
Agriculture, the WPA, the Senate Committee on
Education and Labor and was then made a Special
Assistant to the Attorney General in charge of the trial
4. Henry H. Collins, who served in the NRA, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor,
and the Department of State. During World War II he
became a major in the Army and in 1948 became
Executive Director of the American Russian Institute
(cited by the Attorney General as a Communist front
5. Charles Kramer, who served in the National Labor Relations Board, the Office of Price Administration,
and in 1943, joined the staff of the Senate Subcommittee on War Mobilization.
6. Nathan Witt, who served in the Department of
Agriculture and then became the Secretary of the National Labor Relations Board.
7. Harold Ware, who served in the Department of
8. Victor Perlo, who served in the Office of Price
Administration, the War Production Board, and the
9. Henry Julian Wadleigh, who became a prominent
official in the Treasury Department.
Chambers testified that he received so many
confidential government documents through his
contacts that it took the continuous efforts of two and
sometimes three photographers to microfilm the material and keep it flowing to Russia. Chambers
says he considered Alger Hiss his number one
source of information. He has described how Hiss would bring home a brief case each night filled with material from the State Department. Some of these
documents would be microfilmed. Others would be
copied by Hiss on his typewriter or he would make
summaries in longhand. It was a number of these
typed documents and memos in the certified
handwriting of Alger Hiss which became famous as
the "Pumpkin Papers" and subsequently convicted
Hiss of perjury.
In later years when Chambers was asked to give his
explanation as to why so many well-educated
Americans were duped into committing acts of
subversion against their native country, he explained
that once a person has been converted to the
ideology of Communism he will consider espionage
to be a moral act -- a duty -- committed in the name of
humanity for the good of future society.
The unbelievable extent to which Americans
participated in Russian-directed espionage against
the United States during the depression and during
World War II has only recently become generally
recognized. Many complete books have now been written which summarize the evidence unearthed by
the FBI, the courts and Congress.
Whittaker Chambers Breaks with
In 1938, at the very height of his career as a Russian
courier and contact man, Chambers found his
philosophy of materialism collapsing. It was one morning while feeding his small daughter that
Chambers suddenly realized as he watched her that
the delicate yet immense complexity of the human
body and human personality could not possibly be
explained in terms of accumulated accident. Chambers dated his break with Communism from
that moment.
At first he was highly disturbed and tried to thrust the
new conviction from his mind, but as he opened his
thinking to the evidence around him he finally became
completely persuaded that he was living in a universe
of amazingly immaculate design which was subject to
the creative supervision of a supreme intelligence. Consequently, just as Communist philosophy had
brought him into the movement its collapse made him
determined to get out. It was many months later
before he finally disentangled himself and ran away
from the Soviet Intelligence Service.
Chambers says that when he ultimately made his
break with Communism he did everything in his
power to get his close friend, Alger Hiss, to leave with
him. Alger Hiss, however, not only refused but,
according to Chambers heatedly denounced him for
trying to influence him.
From watching the fate of others, Chambers already
had some idea of what it meant to try and leave the
conspiratorial apparatus of Communism. Nevertheless, the course he followed brought physical
and mental suffering that not even he had suspected.
Today, no more complete account of the agonizing
experiences of those who dare to wear the badge of
an ex-Communist can be found than that contained in
the s of Chambers' autobiography, Witness. At one
point he worked with a gun beside him for fear the Russian secret police would take his life just as they were doing to so many others. At another point he
tried to take his own life to keep from having to
expose those who had formerly been his most
intimate friends.
Most of these details can only be appreciated in their
full text. For our purposes it is sufficient to point out
that up until the time Chambers did finally make up his mind to tell the whole story, the American public was
almost completely unaware of the vast network of spy
activities which Russia had built into every strata of
American society. And this unfortunate condition
existed even though the FBI had been carefully
gathering facts and warning government officials
concerning Communist activities for many years.
Finally, a cloud of witnesses confirmed that it was
Elizabeth Bentley Takes Over After
Chambers Leaves
Chambers had no way of knowing that after he
deserted the Russian espionage system, the Soviets would replace him with a woman. Her name was
Elizabeth Bentley.
She came from a long line of New England American
ancestors, She had attended Vassar, traveled and
studied in Italy for a year and returned to the United
States in 1934 to find the country deep in a
depression. Having failed to get a job, she decided
her only chance was to learn a business course so
she enrolled at the School of Business at Columbia University. There she met up with a number of people who were friendly and sympathetic toward her. It was
quite some time before she knew they were Communists. As these friends explained Communism
to her it seemed rather reasonable -- in fact, the way
they explained it, Communism would be a great
improvement over American Capitalism (which at that moment was bogged down like an iceberg with
unemployment and bankruptcy). So Elizabeth Bentley
became a Communist. She entered the campaign with all the zeal that could come from a girl in her
twenties who suddenly believes that a new era of
history is about to open up which will solve all of
humanity's problems.
For some time Elizabeth Bentley worked in New
York's Welfare Department and while there she was made the financial secretary of the Columbia University Communist unit. She attended the Communist Workers' School and joined so many front
organizations under different names that on at least
one occasion she went to a meeting and could not
remember who she was supposed to be!
Before long the activities of Elizabeth Bentley had
tracked the leaders of the Russian underground
apparatus and before she really knew what had
happened to her she had been carefully shifted from
the day-to-day assignments of the U.S. Communist
Party to the underground network of Soviet
She worked for three different individuals before she was finally assigned to an over-worked, old-time
revolutionary called "Timmy." Elizabeth Bentley fell in
love with Timmy.
One day he said to her: "You and I have no right to
feel the way we do about each other.... There is only
one way out, and that is to stick together and keep our
relationship unknown to everyone.... You will have to
take me completely on faith, without knowing who I
am, where I live, or what I do for a living."
This was how Elizabeth Bentley became the Communist wife of a man who turned out to be Jacob
Golos, one of the all-powerful chiefs of the Russian
Secret Police in the United States.
Under his training Elizabeth Bentley became what she
later called a "steeled Bolshevik."
In May, 1940, she read that an attempt had been made against the life of Leon Trotsky in Mexico. The
attempt had failed but his personal bodyguard had
been kidnaped and shot in the back. For years Stalin
had been trying to liquidate his old enemy and from
the way Jacob Golos behaved Elizabeth Bentley
knew her Communist mate was in on the plot. Several months later a killer actually got through to Trotsky and
smashed his skull with an alpenstock.
Beginning in 1941, Elizabeth Bentley was used by the Russian espionage apparatus to collect material from
contacts in Washington, D.C. She says she first
became the courier for the Silvermaster spy group which was extracting information from Communist
contacts in the Pentagon and other top-secret
governmental agencies. Before she was through she
had picked up nearly all of Whittaker Chambers'
former contacts and many more besides.
Occasionally there was near disaster, as was the
case just after Gregory Silvermaster got a job with the
Board of Economic Warfare through the influence of
Lauchlin Currie (an administrative assistant at the White House). She says that after taking the Job he was shown a letter addressed to his superior from the
head of Army Intelligence indicating that the FBI and
Naval Intelligence had proof of his Communist
connections. The letter demanded that Silvermaster
be discharged.
The panicky Silvermaster asked Elizabeth Bentley what to do. She gave him the same instruction that
other exposed Communists were being given: "Stand
your ground, put on an air of injured innocence; you
are not a Communist, just a 'progressive' whose
record proves you have always fought for the rights of
labor. Rally all your 'liberal' friends around.... If
necessary, hire a lawyer to fight the case through on
the grounds that your reputation has been badly
damaged. Meanwhile, pull every string you can to get
this business quashed. Use Currie, White (Harry
Dexter White, top official of the Treasury Department),
anybody else you know and trust."8
Anyone familiar with the format of defense followed by
suspected Communists who were hailed before Congressional investigating committees will
immediately recognize the Party's trade mark on the
trite pretension of abused innocence recommended
by Elizabeth Bentley. When one considers its
relatively naive and childlike simplicity it is almost a
cause for national chagrin that it confused and
deceived such an amazing number of people for such
an inexplicable number of years. As with practically all
of the others Elizabeth Bentley's suggestions paid off
handsomely for Silvermaster and he soon gained
support from many powerful and unexpected sources.
After three months of "fighting back" the UnderSecretary of War became convinced from hearing
various pleas that an injustice had been done to
Silvermaster and therefore ordered his dismissal
cancelled. Silvermaster was allowed to resign and
return to his old job in the Department of Agriculture with a clean slate. Elizabeth Bentley concludes by
saying, "After a sigh of relief that must have echoed
throughout the entire Russian Secret Police
apparatus, we went back to our normal routine."
According to the sworn testimony of Elizabeth
Bentley, she worked with three major spy cells. The
first was the "Ware Cell" -- the same group Chambers
had handled. In addition she handled the
"Silvermaster Cell" and the "Perlo Cell." She said
these three cells were charged with the task of
supplying her with an almost endless stream of
information for transmittal to Moscow. She testified
under oath that the members of the Silvermaster Cell
and the Perlo Cell were as follows (the departments in which the members were working during the time she
had contact with them are also listed):
The Silvermaster Cell
1. Nathan Gregory Silvermaster served as Director of
the Labor Division of the Farm Security
Administration; was detailed for a short period to the
Board of Economic Warfare.
2. Solomon Adler served in the Treasury Department
as an agent to China.
3. Norman Bursler worked in the Department of
Justice as a special assistant.
4. Frank Coe worked as Assistant Director, Division
of Monetary Research, Treasury Department; special
assistant to the United States Ambassador in
London; assistant to the Executive Director, Board of
Economic Warfare; Assistant Administrator, Foreign
Economic Administration.
5. William Gold, known also as Bela Gold, worked as
assistant head of the Division of Program Surveys,
Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Department of
Agriculture; Senate Subcommittee on War Mobilization; Office of Economic Programs in Foreign
Economic Administration.
6. Mrs. William (Sonia) Gold worked as research
assistant, House Select Committee on Interstate Migration; labor-market analyst, Bureau of
Employment Security; Division of Monetary Research,
Treasury Department.
7. Abraham George Silverman served as Director of
the Bureau of Research and Information Services, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board; economic adviser
and chief of analysis and plans, Assistant Chief of Air
Staff, Materials and Services, Air Force.
8. William Taylor worked in the Treasury Department.
9. William Ludwig Ullman worked in the Division of
Monetary Research, Treasury Department; Material
and Service Division, Air Corps Headquarters,
The Perlo Cell
1. Victor Perlo (also connected with the Ware Cell), worked as the head of a branch in the Research
Section, Office of Price Administration; served the War Production Board handling problems relating to military aircraft production.9
2. Edward J. Fitzgerald served on the War Production
3. Harold Glasser served in the Treasury Department,
loaned to the government of Ecuador; loaned to the War Production Board; worked as adviser on North
African Affairs Committee in Algiers, North Africa.
4. Charles Kramer (also connected with the Ware Cell), worked for the National Labor Relations Board;
Office of Price Administration; economist with the
Senate Subcommittee on War Mobilization.
5. Solomon Leshinsky worked for the United States Relief and Rehabilitation Administration.
6. Harry Magdoff worked for the Statistical Division of
the War Production Board and the Office of
Emergency Management; the Bureau of Research
and Statistics of the W.P.B., the Tools Division of
W.P.B. and the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce.
7. Allan Rosenberg worked in the Foreign Economic
8. Donald Niven Wheeler worked in the Office of
Strategic Services.
In addition, Elizabeth Bentley named the following
individuals who cooperated in obtaining information
from government files even though they were not tied
in to any particular cell:
1. Michael Greenburg -- Board of Economic Warfare;
Foreign Economic Administration, specialist on China.
2. Joseph Gregg -- Coordinator of Inter-American
affairs, assistant in Research Division.
3. Maurice Halperin -- Office of Strategic Services;
head of Latin American Division in the Research and
Analysis Branch; head of Latin American research
and analysis, State Department.
4. J. Julius Joseph -- Office of Strategic Services,
Japanese Division.
5. Duncan Chaplin Lee -- Office of Strategic Services;
legal adviser to General William J. Donovan.
6. Robert T. Miller -- Head of political research, Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs; member,
Information Service Committee, Near Eastern Affairs,
State Department; Assistant Chief, Division of
Research and Publications, State Department.
7. William Z. Park -- Coordinator of Inter-American
8. Bernard Redmont -- Coordinator of Inter-American
9. Helen Tenney -- Office of Strategic Services,
Spanish Division.
These lists of names are set forth to illustrate the
remarkable and devastating pipelines of information which Elizabeth Bentley says the Soviet underground
tapped in Washington during the time she served as
the Russian Secret Police pay-master and courier in
the nation's capital.
Elizabeth Bentley worked doggedly for the Soviets
until 1944. However, a great shock had come to her in
1943 when Jacob Golos died suddenly of a heart
attack on Thanksgiving eve. Just before his death, Golos revealed to her the ruthlessness of his Soviet
superiors who were driving him unmercifully and
forcing him to engage in activities which were
nauseating even to the revolutionary-hardened sense
of his own calloused conscience.
And after Golos' death further disillusionment came to
Elizabeth Bentley when she learned that Earl Browder
had agreed to turn over a group of American Communists in Washington to a most unscrupulous
set of Soviet espionage agents. When she
challenged Browder, he reportedly told her, "Don't be
naive. You know that when the cards are down, I have
to take my orders from them. I just hoped I could
sidetrack them in this particular matter, but it didn't work out."
"But Greg's an old friend of yours," Elizabeth Bentley
said (referring to a member of the group). "So what?"
replied Browder. "He's expendable." Shortly
afterwards Elizabeth Bentley was surprised by a visit
from a top Soviet official from Moscow who told her
she had been awarded the highest medal of the
Soviet Union -- the Order of the Red Star. But she was not nearly as impressed by the proffered honor
as she was disgusted and revolted by the kind of
individual the Soviet official turned out to be. From
that moment on she felt that the Communist leaders in Russia were absolutely incapable of building a great
new world -- no matter how much information she sent
The final blow to her idealism came when the Soviets
tried to force her to turn over to them a girl-friend who was wanted for the immoral role of an entertainer for
high government officials.
One night, alone, Elizabeth Bentley challenged
herself, "What has happened to all of us who started
out so gallantly to build a new world?" Deep inside
herself she was finally able to admit what had
happened. "We had been corrupted and smashed by
a machine more merciless than anything the world
had ever seen."
Many weeks later, Elizabeth Bentley finally walked
into the FBI ready to do everythihing in her power to make amends to her native country.
In some ways it was simultaneously a triumph and a
tragedy. For her, personally, it was a triumph. It was
the chance she needed to square herself with her
conscience and her country. However, in 1948, when
she gave her sworn testimony before a congressional
committee, it threatened to become a tragedy. The Communist press was joined by many so-called
"liberal" factions to accuse her of being everything
from a degenerate to a psychopathic liar or a victim of
insanity. It took time and corroborative testimony of many witnesses to finally halt the clamor.
Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers have
testified that they were both typical members of a
small but extremely dangerous segment of Americans who, through misguided ideologies, swelled the ranks
of Communism during the interval between World
War I and the close of World War II. The vast majority
passed through the same evolution -- first, an
ideological conversion followed by a desire to take
action; secondly, an exposure to the hard-core
realities of Communism in actual operation; and
finally, an awakening followed by a dynamic
determination to desert the delusion and fight it from
the outside.
Fortunately for America, as well as for its citizens who
served the Communist cause, these erstwhile members of the party usually returned to the American way of life more loyal to its principles than when they
left. Only a few have still refused to open their eyes
and ears to all that has been revealed. This
unreclaimed group still labors day and night in a
dedicated service to "the cause."
1. William Bradford,Historyof Plymouth, pp. 160-162.
2. For a discussion of this question, see the appendix, "Did
the EarlyChristians Practice Communism?" page 343.
3. For a discussion of this subject, see the appendix, "What Is
Free-Enterprise Capitalism?" page 327.
4. Final Report of the SubversiveActivities Control Board,April
1953, p. 208.
5. Excerpts from the report of the House Committee on Un- AmericanActivities to the 76th Congress, January3, 1939, pp.
6.Chambers, Whittaker, Witness, p. 164.
7.Chambers, Whittaker, Witness, p. 229.
8. Elizabeth Bentley,Out of Bondage, pp. 173-174.
9. In 1951 he wrote a book on American Imperialism and on
page 220 declared: "The USSR, the People's Democracies,
and China lead the world struggle for peace."

Chapter Eight
Communism And World War II
While Communist espionage channels were being
perfected in the United States, similar subversive
networks were being built throughout the world. Soon
Stalin found the state secrets of all the major powers
pouring in so fast that he was able to play the world- wide game of power politics like a professional
gambler who sits at the poker table carefully planning
his strategy as he reads the marked cards held by
each of the other players.
We now know that it was from this supremely
satisfying position of political omniscience that Stalin
initiated a series of schemes which had their part in
precipitating World War II. Defected Russian
Intelligence officers have revealed that World War II was fomented and used by the Russian leaders as an
important part of the long-range strategy for the
expansion of World Communism. This chapter will
answer the following questions:
What is the explanation for Stalin's attempt to reach a
secret understanding with Hitler in 1933?
Why did Stalin claim credit for starting World War II?
Why did Stalin's pact with Hitler in 1939 surprise Communists throughout the world?
Was Stalin caught off guard when Hitler scrapped the
pact and attacked Russia?
What was the U.S. attitude during the early months of
the Nazi invasion of Russia? What changed that
What do you deduct from this statement in 1942 by a
Presidential advisor: "Generations unborn will owe a
great measure of their freedom to the unconquerable
power of the Soviet people"? Did Allied leaders
appear to have had a basic understanding of
Communist strategy?
How did the Communist leaders use Lend-Lease to
get atomic bomb secrets?
When did U.S. coexistence with Communism begin?
Name the four steps of degeneration through which it
passed. On what presumption was Russia made a full
partner with the U.S. in shaping the post-war world?
How do you account for the fact that the United
Nations Charter follows the format of the Russian Constitution of 1936 rather than the format of the
League of Nations? Would you feel there was any
significance in the fact that the general secretary for
the organization which drew up the charter was Alger Hiss?
What was the attitude of the Communist leaders when
they emerged from World War II as the second
greatest political power on earth?
The Rise of Adolf Hitler and Nazism
in Germany
It is said that Communism was largely responsible for
the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. It will be
recalled that when the German Kaiser capitulated in
1918 the Communists tried to take over Germany.
Anti-communist political groups immediately sprang
up and through a frantic coalition they prevented the Communists from seizing power. It was in this anti- Communist atmosphere that Adolf Hitler began his
political career. He joined the National Socialists
(Nazi) Party which had a strong anti-Bolshevik
platform and by 1921 he had become its leader.
Hitler organized his notorious Nazi Storm Troopers to
retaliate against a spreading rash of Communist
violence. He had his Brown Shirts trained in street
fighting, rioting and the suppression of political
opponents by direct physical attack. By 1923 the
Storm Troopers numbered 10,000 and Hitler felt
strong enough to try and take over the German
province of Bavaria. But this uprising failed. Hitler was
thrown into prison and while there began expressing
his frustrated ambitions in a feverish manuscript on
total war called Mein Kampf -- My Battle. In this book
Hitler revealed that he was not only bitterly anticommunistic but that he stood for outright violation of
the Treaty of Versailles. He said he would fight for the
complete restoration of Germany as a world power. He was planning for the creation of a great Nordic
empire embracing all the people of German blood in
Europe regardless of their national residence. Mein
Kampf constituted a threat to every nation bordering
on Germany. It also contained a threat against Russia
because Hitler declared that the natural course of
German expansion would eventually carry the Nazi
conquest into the fertile Ukrainian agricultural region
and then into the rich Russian oil fields.
Later as Stalin watched Hitler cudgel and jostle his way into power he recognized in the Nazi dictator a
formidable opponent of his own breed and kind. He
saw that Hitler was shrewd and ruthless. He was
completely amoral. He had no compunction whatever
against violence, the purging of his own people, the
use of deceit in propaganda, nor the sacrifice of millions of lives to achieve personal power. Materialism had produced precisely the same
product in Germany that it had produced in Russia.
Although called by different names Nazism and
Communism were aimed at the same identical mark
and were forged in very similar ideological molds.
Perhaps this explains why Stalin secretly tried to
negotiate a personal understanding with Hitler shortly
after the latter came into power during 1933. One of
Stalin's leading secret agents, General W.G.
Krivitsky, has furnished the details tails of these
efforts.1 When Stalin's gestures of friendship were
rejected by Hitler; Stalin knew the German Fuehrer
could be dealt with only as an outright enemy.
Stalin then hastened to gain the sympathies of the
democracies. He attempted to identify Russia's
policies with the political and economic welfare of
freedom-loving people in other nations. He called this
campaign the "Popular Front." At the Seventh World
Congress of the International in 1935, he instructed
loyal Communists in every country to combine with
any political groups which opposed Hitler and his
allies -- even right wing parties which the Communists
had previously attacked. Judged by its results, the
"Popular Front" was the most successful tactic ever
adopted by Communist strategists. It permitted
Communists to associate openly with the most
conservative and highly respected political groups in
capitalist countries.
The Communists Claim Credit for
Starting World War II
In 1938 Stalin watched closely as Hitler decided to
test the temper of the Western Allies by occupying all
of Austria. When no serious consequences resulted,
the Fuehrer prepared to assimilate other areas along
the German borders. At Munich he threatened to
blitzkrieg Europe unless England and France let him
take over the industrial section of Czechoslovakia.
When they agreed, he immediately extended his
occupation to nearly all of that valiant little country.
In 1939 Hitler seized Memelland in Lithuania and then
prepared to march into Poland. However, at this point
he hesitated. Russia wanted Poland, too. As a matter
of fact, Russia held the balance of power in Europe
and Hitler did not dare take steps which would start
an all-out war in the West unless he could be assured
that Russia would not interfere. Hitler, therefore, made
overtures to Stalin to sign a nonaggression pact. To
the astonishment of the whole world, Stalin accepted!
This meant that Hitler could go to war with the
assurance that Russia would not interfere.
This caught most of the Communist world completely
off guard. For years Red propaganda had portrayed
Stalin as the world's leading opponent of Nazism and
Fascism. Now Stalin's regime had ratified a pact with
the Nazis which gave them a carte blanche to start a war in the West.
In America it took the Communist press several days
to get their propaganda in reverse. Whittaker Chambers says it was absolutely incomprehensible to
American Communists that Stalin would capitulate to
his greatest enemy. It was not until Chambers talked with Stalin's former director of espionage in Western
Europe that he heard the official explanation. General
W.G. Krivitsky said this pact demonstrated Stalin's
genius as a strategist. He explained that Stalin knew
this pact would turn Hitler loose on Europe but that he
also knew that as the war progressed it was likely that
the western nations would fight themselves into
exhaustion. At that point Soviet troops could march in.
Almost without a blow the Soviet troops would be able
to take over all of Europe in the name of the
dictatorship of the proletariat!
And just as Stalin had suspected, Hitler was not at all
slow to take advantage of the political shove Stalin
had given him. The pact was signed August 23, 1939.
By September 1, the German Panzers were pouring
through the valiant, but helpless ranks of the Polish
horse cavalry, and thousands of tons of bombs were
falling on Polish cities.
Also, as Stalin had expected, England and France were immediately dragged into the war because of
their commitments to Poland. This was a war which
these countries were neither physically nor
psychologically prepared to wage. Before a year had
passed, Poland had been divided between Germany
and Russia and France had been occupied. Soon
afterwards the British troops were bombed off the
European continent at Dunkirk, and the Nazis were
then left practically without resistance as they
expanded their occupation into Denmark, Norway, Holland and Belgium.
Assuming that the war would now settle down to a
struggle between Germany and England, Stalin felt
ready to make his next carefully calculated move. Only
two major capitalist nations still remained outside of
the conflict: Japan and the United States.
On April 13, 1941, Stalin nudged the Japanese war
lords into an offensive in the Pacific. This was
accomplished by the same simple device as that which had turned Hitler loose on Europe -- a pact.
At that moment Russia, even more than the United
States, was the greatest single impediment to
Japanese expansion in East Asia and the Pacific. By
accepting a pact with Russia, the Japanese war lords were left free to launch their pan-Asiatic campaign in
the Pacific and the Far East. They made immediate
preparations for their attack.
Stalin Suffers a Strategic Defeat
Stalin now intended to sit back and wait for the
capitalist nations to endure their baptism of fire. He
had assured the Soviet military leaders that World
War II would be won by the nation which stayed out
the longest. That nation, of course, must be Russia. What he did not know, however, was that Adolf Hitler
had been planning a disastrous surprise for the Communist Motherland. In fact, at the very moment
Stalin was promoting his neutrality pact with Japan,
Adolf Hitler was secretly announcing to his general
staff: "The German armed forces must be prepared to
crush Soviet Russia in a quick campaign."
The great surprise came on June 22, 1941. Hitler
scrapped the pact and attacked Russia on a 2,000 mile front with 121 divisions and 3,000 planes. He
had written all about it years before in Mein Kampf.
This sudden blitzkrieg attack changed the history of
the world. It shattered Stalin's intention to stay out of
the war while the capitalistic nations fought
themselves to exhaustion. It meant that Russia would
enter the war prematurely and with the most meager
World War II Moves Closer to the
United States
To many observers in the United States, this new
development in World War II appeared favorable to
the interest of peace-loving countries. Hitler's attack
on Russia locked the world's two greatest aggressor
nations in deadly combat and even military leaders
thought this might relieve future world tensions. But within six months the Germans had occupied 580,000
square miles of the richest land in the USSR -- land
originally occupied by more than one third of Russia's
population, and in spite of the "scorched earth" policy
of Russia, the Nazi troops successfully extracted their
supplies from the people and the land so that they were able to race forward without waiting to have
supply lines established. Soon German Panzers had
penetrated to a point only sixty miles from Moscow
and Hitler announced exuberantly that "Russia is
already broken and will never rise again."
All of this shocked the rest of the world into the
reprehensible possibility of a Nazi empire which might extend from England to Alaska. Instinctively
Americans began cheering for the Russians. It was
considered to be a matter of vital self interest,
implemented by the traditional American tendency to
cheer for the underdog.
Then the fatal dawn of Sunday, December 7, 1941,
brought the devastating attack of the Japanese on
Pearl Harbor and the United States found herself in
the holocaust of World War II before she was even
halfway prepared. In desperation American leaders
reached out in all directions for friends. It is important
to remember that the black boots of Hitler's marching
Wehrmacht had pounded a paralyzing fear into the
hearts of peoples on every continent. It was Nazism --
not Communism -- that was blotting out the light of
civilization around the earth. Therefore, since Russia
had already been brought within the orbit of American
sympathy, it is not difficult to understand how she
became an intimate U.S. ally almost over night.
Somehow it seemed impossible to remember that
this was the very same Russia that had joined a
nonaggression pact with Hitler to turn him loose in
Europe, and had joined a neutrality pact with the
Japanese to turn them loose in the Pacific.
The U.S. Policy of Coexistence Goes
into Its Third Stage
By the early spring of 1942 it was not only apparent
that the war had caught U.S. military strength at a very
low level, but it was also equally obvious that the Axis
had practically destroyed all of America's traditional
allies. Perhaps, as George F. Kennan suggests, this may partially account for the desperate gamble taken
at that time by certain U.S. diplomatic strategists in
dealing with Russia.
Already the diplomatic navigators had gone from a
policy of plain coexistence with Communism in 1933,
to one step lower where they had decided to accept
the abuse and the broken promises of the Communist
leaders. Now they resolved to go even further. They
decided to try to convert the Communist leaders to
the American way of thinking by showering them with
such overwhelming generosity that there could be no
vestige of suspicion concerning the desire of the United States to gain the cooperative support of the Communist leaders in winning the war and later
preserving the peace. It was assumed that they would
then become permanently and sympathetically allied with the United States and the western democracies
in building a "one world" of peace and prosperity.
If this plan had worked, it would have been truly a master stroke of diplomatic genius. Unfortunately,
however, it turned out to be just what many military
officials and heads of intelligence agencies predicted
it would be -- the means by which Russia would
catapult herself into a world power by capitalizing on
the treasure and prestige of the very nation she most
desired to destroy.
Nevertheless, the program was inaugurated and
America's attitude toward Russia both during and
after World War II can only be understood in terms of
this policy.
In early June, 1942, Molotov came secretly to Washington and stayed at the White House. After his
departure preparations were made to break the new
U.S. policy to the American people. On June 22,
1942, (the anniversary of Hitler's attack on the USSR)
a Russian Aid Rally was held in New York's Madison
Square Garden. There a top government official
announced: "A second front? Yes, and if necessary, a
third and a fourth front.... We are determined that
nothing shall stop us from sharing with you all that we
have and are in this conflict, and we look forward to
sharing with you the fruits of victory and peace." Then
there followed the pathetic, but blindly hopeful
statement: "Generations unborn will owe a great measure of their freedom to the unconquerable power
the Soviet people."2
One of the meetings of Premier Stalin, PresidentRoosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill.
This one was held at Teheran during one of the most critical
periods of World War II.
The Story of American Lend-Lease
to Russia
This American policy of generosity immediately
began to manifest itself. Billions of dollars of Russian
Lend-Lease Were authorized. Even the deliberate
sacrifice of American self-interest was evident in
some of the orders received by U.S. military services.
An order to the Air Service Command dated January
1, 1943, carried this astounding mandate: "The modification, equipment, and movement of Russian
planes have given first priority, even over planes for
the U.S. Army Forces."
The U.S. Congress was not quite as enthusiastic
toward Russia as the diplomatic strategists. Congress specifically restricted Russian Lend-Lease
to materials to be used for military action against the
Axis enemy. It forbade the shipment of materials which would be used for civilian personnel or the
rehabilitation of Russia after the war. This was in no way designed to show unfriendliness toward the Russian people. It was simply an expression of belief
that U.S. resources should not be used to promote Communist Russia into a world power. Some day the Russian people would perhaps regain their freedom,
and that would be the time to share resources. Meanwhile, non-military generosity would only
strengthen the post-war position of the Communist
In spite of these legal restrictions, however, the
uninhibited generosity of the diplomats dominated
Lend-Lease rather than Congress or the leaders of
the Military.
General John R. Deane, for example, who was in Moscow as Chief of the U.S. Military Mission, turned
down a Russian request for 25 large 200-horsepower Diesel marine engines because the engines already
sent to Russia were rusting in open storage and from
all appearances were simply being stockpiled for
post-war use. Furthermore, the engines were badly
needed by General MacArthur in the South Pacific.
After hearing General Deane's decision, the Russians
appealed to Harry Hopkins (head of the Lend-Lease
program) who over-ruled General Deane. During the
following two years a total of 1,305 of these engines were sent to Russia at a cost to the American people
of $30,745,947.
After Pearl Harbor, when Navy officials were given the
highest possible priority for copper wire to be used in
the repair of U.S. battleships, they found the Russians
had an even higher priority for an order of copper wire which was apparently to be used for post-war
rehabilitation of Russian cities. The wire was turned
over to the Russians in such quantities that it had to
be stored on a 20-acre lot in Westchester County, New York, where it remained until the war was nearly
over. A few months before the Armistice, it was
shipped to Russia for the rehabilitation of their
communications systems.
Since the close of World War II, the American people
have gradually learned the details concerning the
flood of goods and treasure which went to Russia
under Lend-Lease. The lists which have been
published are from Russian records. They were
secured by anAmerican officer, Major George Racey
Jordan, who was the official U.S. expediter for Russian Lend-Lease at the Great Falls Air Base in Montana. An analysis of these lists showed that
according to Russian records, the Communists
received over eleven billion dollars worth of LendLease and that in spite of the legal restrictions
against it, the diplomatic strategists included
$3,040,423,000 worth of American goods, paid for by
American taxpayers, which definitely does not appear
to be authorized by the Lend-Lease act. These lists
show shipments of vast stockpiles of "non-munition"
chemicals together with voluminous shipments of
cigarette cases, phonograph records, ladies'
compacts, sheet music, pianos, antique furniture,
$388,844 worth of "notions and cheap novelties," women's jewelry, household furnishings, fishing
tackle, lipstick, perfumes, dolls, bank vaults,
playground equipment, and quantities of many other
types of illegal, non-military merchandise.
Students of Russian wartime history point out that
American Lend-Lease began feeding into Russia at a
time when she was almost prostrate. She had lost most of her crops as a result of the scorched earth
campaign designed to slow Nazi advances. Even with
Lend-Lease food the troops had to be rationed at a
bare subsistence level so it is likely that without
Lend-Lease the Russian resistance might well have
collapsed. Furthermore, the Germany occupation cut
the Russians off from many of their major industrial
centers. In addition to U.S. planes, munitions,
chemicals, tools, heavy machinery, and so forth, the
amazing American "Arsenal of Democracy" provided
Russia with 478,899 motor vehicles. This was nearly
half of all the motor vehicles used on the Soviet front.
It is an interesting commentary on the Communist
psychology to note that the United States never
received an official "thank you" from Russia for the
eleven billion dollars worth of Lend-Lease goods which were paid for and literally "donated" to the Communist Motherland by the American people.
Stalin's excuse was that his government felt the United States made an error when it stopped LendLease at the close of the war. He made it icy clear
that under the circumstances his people did not feel
an expression of gratitude would be either
appropriate or justifiable.
Russian Attempts to Secure the
Secrets of the Atomic Bomb
Throughout World War II Russian espionage
vigorously concentrated on the most important thing to
come out of the War -- the harnessing of atomic
energy. A two-pronged thrust was employed to get the
information as it was developed: one by espionage
and the other by diplomatic channels. For a time the
diplomatic channels were particularly productive, not
only for atomic energy secrets, but for all military and
industrial information.
Major Jordan first became aware of this at the Great
Falls Lend-Lease Air Base when the Russians began
bringing large quantities of cheap, black suitcases
along with them whenever they left the United States.
They refused to let Jordan see the contents on the
grounds that the suitcases were pieces of "diplomatic
luggage" and therefore immune to inspection.
One night the Russian commander at the base almost
demanded that Jordan go into Great Falls as his
dinner guest. Jordan was suspicious but accepted.
About midnight he received an excited call that a
plane had just landed and the Soviets were going to
take off for Russia without waiting for Jordan's
clearance. Jordan raced back to the airfield. Sure
enough, the plane was a joker. In it were fifty black
suitcases protected by armed Russian guards.
Jordan ordered a GI to hold the guards at bay and
shoot to kill if they forcibly interfered with his
Jordan later testified under oath before a
congressional committee that he found each suitcase
to contain a file of information about U.S. industry,
harbors, troops, railroads, communications, and so
forth. In one suitcase Jordan said he found a letter on White House stationery signed by Harry Hopkins and
addressed to the number three man in the Russian
hierarchy. Attached to the letter was a map of the topsecret Manhattan (atomic energy) Project, together with descriptive data dealing with atomic energy
experiments! One folder in this suitcase had written
on it, "From Hiss." At the time Jordan did not know
who Hiss was. Inside the folder were numerous military documents. Another folder contained
Department of State documents. Some of them were
letters from the U.S. embassy in Moscow giving
confidential evaluations of the Russian situation and
detailed analytical impressions of Russian officials. Now they were being secretly shipped back for the Russians to read.
When Major Jordan reported the facts to Washington
he was severely criticized for holding up the plane!
In April, 1943, the Russian liaison officer told Jordan
that a very special shipment of experimental
chemicals was coming through. The Russian officer
called Harry Hopkins in Washington and then turned
the phone over to Jordan. Major Jordan reports that
Harry Hopkins told him: "I don't want you to discuss
this with anyone, and it is not to go on the records. Don't make a big production of it, but just send it
through quietly, in a hurry."
The Russian officer later told Jordan the shipment was "bomb powder" and Jordan saw an entry in the
officer's folder which said "Uranium." The shipment
came through June 10, 1943. It was the first of
several. At least 1,465 pounds of uranium salts are
said to have been sent through to the Soviet Union. Metallurgists estimate that this could be reduced to
6.25 pounds of fissionable U-235. This is two pounds more than would be necessary to produce an atomic
explosion. On July 24, 1945, at Potsdam, President
Truman announced to Winston Churchill and Joseph
Stalin that the United States had finally developed a
highly secret bomb. He told them this bomb
possessed almost unbelievable explosive power.
Secretary of State James F. Byrnes was watching
Stalin and noted that he did not seem particularly
surprised, or even interested in the announcement.
Four years later (September 23, 1949), President
Truman announced to the world that Russia had
successfully exploded an atomic bomb -- years ahead
of U.S. expectations! Some officials wondered why, with all the help they received, the Russians had not
exploded one long before.
Closing Months of World War II
Historically, Russia has always been stronger in
defense than in attack. During World War II the Russian people displayed an incredible will to resist
during the days when even Hitler thought they were
completely beaten. They suffered astronomical
losses: 7 million dead (including 2.5 million Russian
Jews exterminated by the Nazis and 1.5 million other
Soviet civilians killed by the Germans), while
approximately 3 million died in combat. From 3 to 4 million were taken prisoners but the number of wounded and maimed is not given. As a result of the war there was a destruction of 1,700 Russian towns,
70,000 villages and hamlets, 31,000 factories,
84,000 schools, 40,000 miles of track, in addition to
the destruction of 7 million horses, 17 million head of
cattle, and 20 million hogs. This represented about
one-fourth of all Soviet property.
There is no way of knowing whether or not Stalin ever
forced himself to acknowledge it, but this almost
incomprehensible toll of monstrous destruction might
very well have been avoided if Stalin had not made
the insidious mistake of deliberately signing the pact with Hitler in 1939 which triggered the opening
campaign of World War II. There are leading political
authorities who now state that if Hitler had been
forced to delay his campaign into Poland because of
a threat from Russia, it would have given the Western Nations sufficient time to build up their forces, and by
restoring a balance power in Europe the entire saga
of World War IImight have occurred.
U.S. Policy of Coexistence Enters
the Fourth Stage
During World War II the President of the United States
received two different interpretations of Communist
policy and two different recommendations as how
best to deal with the Communist leaders. One group
of advisers took the historical approach, accepted the Communists as the world revolutionists which they
described themselves to be, and assumed that their
past conduct was the safest criterion of how they might be expected to act in the future. A second
group of advisers presented a much more idealistic
view of the Communist leaders. They wanted people
to forget the past; to look upon Communist
boorishness as nothing more than political immaturity,
something which could be changed by patient
endurance and expansive generosity.
To this second group, there rapidly gravitated not only
theoretical idealists, but men and women who were
later found to be deeply involved in outright
subversion against the United States government.3
Historians now find it difficult to define just where
idealism left off and subversion took over. In any event
this was the group which dominated the Lend-Lease
program and set the stage for policies which
controlled U.S. relations with Russia for approximately
fifteen years.
This was also the group of presidential advisers who
acclaimed with the greatest enthusiasm the slightest
suggestion that the Communists were "changing." For
example, when the Communist International was
disbanded May 22, 1943, this group hailed the
announcement as incontrovertible evidence that the Communist leaders had renounced world conquest. Others suspected that this was merely a propaganda
device. The latter proved to be the case, as Igor Gouzenko, the former Russian code clerk, testified:
"The announcement of the dissolution of the Comintern (Communist International) was probably
the greatest farce of the Communists in recent years. Only the name was liquidated, with the object of
reassuring public opinion in the democratic countries.
Actually the Comintern exists and continues its work,
because the Soviet leaders have never relinquished
the idea of establishing a Communist dictatorship."4
When many high officials of the President's own party
saw the dangerous direction in which U.S. policy was moving, they hastened to warn him. One interesting
conversation took place during the war between the
President and his good friend, William C. Bullitt, whom the President had sent to Russia as the first
U.S. ambassador in 1933. Mr. Bullitt had just finished
outlining to the President many of his personal
experiences with Joseph Stalin, and had warned the
President to keep up his guard when dealing with the Communist leaders.
"Bill," replied the President, "I don't dispute your facts;
they are accurate. I don't dispute the logic of your
reasoning. I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that
kind of a man. Harry (Hopkins) says he's not, and that
he doesn't want anything but security for his country.
And I think that if I give him everything that I can, and
ask nothing from him in return ... he won't try to annex
anything, and will work with me for a world peace and
The philosophy reflected in this statement is the
keynote to an understanding of the conferences held
by the "Big Three" toward the close of the war. By that
time the diplomatic strategy of the United States
(which began with simple co-existence in 1933) had
passed into its fourth phase -- the complete
acceptance of the Russian Communists as full
partners the plans for preserving future world peace.
Creation of the United Nations
During August and September 1944, the
representatives of Britain, China, Russia and the United States, met at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, D.C. At this conference the constitutional
foundation for the United Nations was laid. In it Russia was not only made a full partner, but a dominant
stockholder. A most significant development was the
fact that, while other nations objected, Russia insisted
on the right to exercise the veto power even if she were a party to the dispute. This violated the very
foundation of international jurisprudence but the
democracies consented. They were ready to pay
almost any price to get Russia to participate.
By December 28, 1944, the American Ambassador
to Russia began to express misgivings about U.S.-
Soviet relations and the part Russia would play in the
post-war period: "The Soviets have definite
objectives in their future foreign policy, all of which we
do not as yet fully understand.... From Soviet actions
so far, the terms 'friendly' and 'independent' appear to mean something quite different from our own
Once the tide of war had turned, there was an
increased arrogance in Soviet treatment of U.S.
officials. General Deane wrote to Washington about
Lend-Lease and said: "Even our giving is viewed with
suspicion.... The party of the second part (the U.S.) is
either a shrewd trader to be admired or a sucker to
be despised.... I have yet to see the inside of a Russian home. Officials dare not become too friendly
with us, and others are persecuted for this offense."7
By the following April the Prime Minister of England was becoming fed up with the whole Russian picture. He appealed to President Roosevelt: "I deem it of the
highest importance that a firm and blunt stand should
be made at this juncture by our two countries in order
that the air may be cleared and they (the Russians)
realize that there is a point beyond which we will not
tolerate insult."8
There is some evidence that the President of the
United States was also beginning to awaken to the
realities of the situation, but one week after this message was written, President Roosevelt died. The monumental task of finishing the war and building the United Nations fell into the hands of those who still
insisted that the Russians were being misunderstood
and that a successful partnership could be definitely
On April 25, 1945, 1,400 representatives from 46
nations met in San Francisco, and after due
deliberation agreed upon a United Nations Charter.
Anyone familiar with the Communist Constitution of
Russia will recognize in the United Nations Charter a
similar format. It is characterized by a fervent
declaration of democratic principles which are sound
and desirable; this is then followed by a constitutional
restriction or procedural limitation which completely
nullifies the principles just announced. For example,
the Russian Constitution provides for universal
suffrage and voting by secret ballot. Then, in Article
126, it provides for a single political party (the Communist Party) which will furnish the voters with a
single roster of candidates. This, of course renders
completely meaningless all the high-flown phrases
dealing with universal suffrage and secret ballots.
Freedom of the press is likewise guaranteed, and
then wiped out by the provision that all writings must
be "in the interest of the workers."
In precisely this same way the United Nations Charter
provides for "the sovereign equality of all its
members" (Article 1) and then sets up a Security
Council which is dominated by five permanent members (Britain, Russia, China, France and the United States) any one of which can nullify the
expressed desires of all other member nations by the
simple device of exercising the veto power.
The Charter allows each member nation to have one
vote in the General Assembly. This sounds like
democracy, but then it provides that the General
Assembly can do nothing more than make
recommendations, and must refer all of its
suggestions to the Security Council for action!
(Articles 11-14). This makes the Security Council the
only legally binding legislative body in the U.N. To make this absolutely crystal clear the Charter
provides in Article 24 that any nation which joins the U.N. must "agree to accept and carry out the
decisions of the Security Council."
This means that in spite of the bold declaration that
the U.N. is "based on respect for the principle of
equal rights and self-determination of peoples" the
cold fact is that the members are all committed to
obey the will of a handful of nations in the Security
Council. As the next ten years dramatically
demonstrated, all members of the U.N. -- particularly
the little nations -- could be subjected to the chokehold which the USSR had provided for herself by
holding membership in the Security Council and
dominating that body through the frequent use of the
veto power.
The Charter further provides that membership in the U.N. shall be restricted to "peace-loving" states
(Article 4). This was thoroughly discussed at San
Francisco, and Secretary John Foster Dulles has
emphasized that the U.N. was designed to be a
collective organization of friendly nations to preserve
peace rather than an assemblage of all the nations in
the world. In other words, the United Nations was built
on the premise that its members would only include
those nations which had had a demonstrated history
of being "peace-loving." Eight years after the
adoption of the U.N. Charter, Secretary lies explained
to the American Bar Association why the United
Nations had failed to preserve the peace: "Now we
see the inadequacy of an organization whose
effective functioning depends upon cooperation with a
nation which is dominated by international party
seeking world dominion."9
As some authorities have since pointed out, the U.N.
provided for a world-wide police commission and
then made the top international gangster a member of
that commission. It was like setting up a fire
department to put out the conflagration of war and
then putting the world-community's foremost firebug
on the department. From the point of view of the little
nations, it was like promising to provide a good
shepherd to protect the small, weak countries, and
then appointing the wolf and all her pups to protect the
All this became apparent during the "decade of
disillusionment" which immediately followed. In 1945,
however, a war-weary, hopeful free world felt the
United Nations was all it purported to be -- an
organization for collective security designed to stand
like a bastion against aggressor nations.
Communist Attitudes at the Close of
World War II
A clear indication of what the United States could
expect from post-war Communism came on May 24,
1945, when the leading French Communist, Jacques Duclos, wrote a letter on behalf of his Russian
superiors demanding that the Communists in the United States be required to immediately abandon
their policy of friendly collaboration with capitalism
and return to their historic mission of world revolution.
Back in 1940 the Communist Party of America had
formally withdrawn from the Third International to
avoid having to register as a foreign agent under the
Voorhis Act. Later the Communist Party of America was dissolved in an attempt to attach the Communist membership to one of the major U.S. political parties.
For this purpose they called themselves the Communist Political Association.
All of this twisting and turning was in complete
harmony with Soviet policy until 1945. After World
War II, the announced policy reverted to traditional
Marxism. To justify the complete switch in policy, Earl
Browder, the American Communist leader, was
accused of being personally responsible for the
"errors" of the former policy. He was expelled from the
The party leadership was immediately taken over by
William Z. Foster. Foster, it will be recalled, had
written an inflammatory book in 1932 called Toward
Soviet America. Just before World War II he had
testified before a Congressional Committee: "When a Communist heads a government of the United States,
and that day will come just as surely as the sun rises,
that government will not be a capitalistic government,
but a Soviet government, and behind this government will stand the Red Army to enforce the dictatorship of
the proletariat."10
It is no longer difficult to understand why Moscow
wanted men like Foster at the head of its Communist
parties throughout the world. We now know that the Russian leaders approached the conclusion of the world's greatest war with the conviction that World
War III might be in the near offing. In their secret
circles they hopefully speculated that this next war might be Communism's final death struggle with
Igor Gouzenko states that after the armistice, he and
the other employees in the Russian Embassy at
Ottawa, Canada, were warned against an attitude of
complacency. Colonel Zabotin gathered the
employees together and then referred to the free- world democracies as follows: "Yesterday they were
our allies, today they are our neighbors, tomorrow
they will be our enemies!"11
Remarkable insight into the Communist mind during
this Period can also be obtained from a speech
delivered to an intimate circle of Communist leaders
by Marshal Tito, head the party in Yugoslavia:
"The second capitalist war, in which Russia was
attacked by her most dangerous and strongest fascist
enemy, has ended in a decisive victory for the Soviet
Union. But this does not mean that Marxism has won
a final victory over capitalism.... Our collaboration with
capitalism during the war which has recently ended,
by no means signifies that we shall prolong our
alliance with it in the future. On the contrary, the
capitalist forces constitute our natural enemy despite
the fact that they helped us to defeat their most
dangerous representative. It may happen that we shall
again decide to make use of their aid, but always with
the sole aim of accelerating their final ruin....
"The atomic bomb is a new factor by means of which
the capitalist forces wish to destroy the Soviet Union
and the victorious prospects of the working class. It is
their only remaining hope.... Our aims have not been
realized in the desired form because the construction
of the Atomic bomb was speeded up and perfected
as early as 1945. But we are not far from the
realization of our aims. We must gain a little more
time for the reorganization of our ranks and the
perfecting of our preparations in arms and munitions.
"Our present policy should, therefore, be to follow a moderate line, in order to gain time for the economic
and industrial reconstruction of the Soviet Union and
of the other states under our control. Then the moment
will come when we can hurl ourselves into the battle
for the final annihilation of reaction."12
Such were the reflections of Communist leaders as
they emerged from World War II as the second
greatest political power on earth. They felt
Communism might have unprecedented possibilities
as the "brave new world" entered the post-war period.
1. This chapter in Stalin-Hitler relations is discussed by General Krivitskyin his book, In Stalin's Secret Service.
2. Speech of HarryHopkins quoted in Roosevelt and Hopkins,
byRobert E. Sherwood, p. 588.
3.Arather complete summaryof Communist infiltration of the United States Government is contained in the book of James Burnham, The Web of Subversion, John Day Company, New
York, 1954.
4. The Report of the Royal Canadian Commission, p. 663.
5. Life magazine, August 30, 1948, p. 94.
6.U.S.News & World Rreport,April 1, 1955, p. 41, in an article
entitled:"U.S. Was Warned of SovietDouble Cross."
7.U.S.News & World Report, April 1, 1955, p. 40.
8.U.S.News & World Report,December 10, 1954, p. 29, in an
article entitled:"SixWeeks That Shaped History."
9. The U.N. Today, H.W. Wilson Company, New York, 1954, p.
10. See the Report of the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, January3, 1939, pp. 18-21.
11.Report of the Royal Commission ofCanada, p. 655.
12. Report by the Continental News Service, November 8,
1946, and quoted in The Communist Threat to Canada, Ottawa, 1947, pp. 10-11.

Chapter Nine
Communist Attacks on the Free
World During the Post-War Period
Stalin's plan for the expansion of Communism after
the war involved three techniques: the creation of pro- Communist puppet governments in occupied territory,
the military conquest of new territory by satellite
armies, and the further infiltration of free countries by
Soviet espionage and propaganda organizations.
In this chapter we shall try to account for the
phenomenal success of these three programs. It
should provide the answers to these questions:
Toward the last part of World War II did Allied leaders
begin to suspect a Russian double cross? Why did
Harry Hopkins make a special trip to Moscow a few months before he died?
How did the free world lose 100,000,000 people to
the Iron Curtain through Soviet strategy?
How did the free world lose 450,000,000 more
people through the conquest of China? What did the Wedemeyer Report reveal?
Do you think diplomatic blunders may have
encouraged the attack on South Korea? What
significance do you attach to Owen Lattimore's
amazing statement in 1949: "The thing to do is let
South Korea fall, but not to let it look as if we pushed
What was the turning point in the Korean war which
gave the U.N. forces their first military advantage?
After the Korean cease-fire in 1953, what did the U.S.
Secretary of State say to indicate that the U.S. was
abandoning a twenty-year policy of appeasement?
What was the role of the FBI in the "Battle of the Underground?"
Why did the U.S. not do more to prevent the loss of
French Indo-China?
In the dispute over Formosa, why did the Red
Chinese call the U.S. a paper tiger?
What did Dimitry Z. Manuilsky say about the strategy
of "peaceful coexistence"?
The Decay in U.S.-Soviet Relations
at the End of World War II
The evidence of Communist subversion and
aggression became so apparent toward the close of
World War II that even some of those who had staked
their professional careers on the friendship of the
Soviet leaders began to sense a feeling of alarm.
This included Harry Hopkins. Within a month after the
death of President Roosevelt, Hopkins became so
concerned with developments that he hurriedly made
arrangements to see Stalin in person. At the time Hopkins was critically ill, with only a short time to live,
but he forced himself to make this final pilgrimage to Moscow to try and salvage some of the remnants
from the wreckage of what was to have been a master plan for post-war peace.
When he arrived in Moscow, however, Hopkins was
confronted by a blunt and angry Stalin. We are
indebted to former Secretary of State, James F.
Byrnes, for an account at what happened.1 Stalin made an amazingly antagonistic verbal assault on the
handling of the program Hopkins had sponsored for Russia -- the program of Lend-Lease.
The shock of this attack may be better appreciated when it is remembered that Hopkins considered
himself to be the best friend the Soviets had in
America. He and his associates had just spent
billions of dollars and risked an atomic war to try and
create a Russo-American partnership for peace.
Probably Hopkins would not have been more startled
by the treatment he received if Stalin had physically
slapped him in the face.
In reply, Hopkins vigorously pointed out "how liberally
the United States (through him) had construed the law
in sending foodstuffs and other non-military items to
their aid." Stalin admitted all of this but roughly
crossed it off by saying the Soviets still could not
forgive the United States for terminating Lend-Lease
after V-Day in Europe.
At the moment it seemed that nothing would pacify
Stalin but a brand new round of wide-open American
Lend-Lease generosity; otherwise he apparently
could think of no particular reason for even pretending
to want the friendship of the United States any longer. He even threatened to boycott the United Nations Conference which was soon to be held in San
For reasons which now seem quite incongruous, Hopkins continued to plead with Stalin to stay on the
team and reiterated the many concessions which he was sure the Communists could gain by taking part in
the United Nations organization. Like a pouting and
spunky child, Stalin assumed an air of studied
reluctance, but gradually gave in. By agreeing to join
the United Nations Conference at San Francisco he wanted Hopkins to know he was doing the United
States a tremendous favor.
Finally, Hopkins returned home. By the time of his
death in January, 1946, there was already ample
evidence that peace-loving nations were in for a
violent and stormy era as a result of the strategy of writing in the Soviets as full-fledged partners of the
free world.
The Free World Loses 100 Million
Obviously, a primary object of World War II was to
liberate all of the countries occupied by the Axis
powers. Russia was well aware that if she were to
expand her influence into these liberated nations --
particularly the ones which bordered the USSR -- she would have to do it in such a way as to create the
illusion that these nations had gone Communistic
through their own political self-determination. It
became established Soviet policy to take secret but
highly active interest in the affairs of these countries --
to make them "voluntary" satellites through infiltration
and subversion.
In some nations this plan brought immediate results.
For example, it made satellites of Yugoslavia and
Albania almost overnight because the Communists
had captured the leadership of the anti-Nazi, antiFascist resistance movements during the war and as
soon as these countries were liberated the Communists demanded the right to set up the new
governments. Later, Stalin tried to purge Tito's regime
but found it would not purge. Tito temporarily pulled
Yugoslavia away from the Russian orbit but remained
openly devoted to Marxism in spite of generous U.S.
economic aid.
economic aid.
Russia also found a highly favorable condition for her
schemes in the Eastern European countries. As a
result of the military campaigns carried out by Soviet
troops during the final phase of World War II, Red
forces occupied all of Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and most of what is now
East Germany.
The Soviet strategy for the "peaceful" conquest of
these countries prior to withdrawing the Red troops was to encourage the creation of coalition
governments including only left-wing parties. This
gave the impression that these nations had some
semblance of representative government. The next
step was to maneuver Communists into all key
governmental positions. The third and final step was
to force all parties to join in a "monolithic bloc" with
the Communist leaders assuming complete
dictatorial power.
Through this carefully executed maneuver the
complete subjugation of all these countries was
completed by 1949. The Communist Iron Curtain
came clanking down on all their western borders and
the free world found itself completely cut off from any
contact with these former allies who represented
approximately 100 million people.
The Free World Loses China with
Her 450 Million People
At this same time there also came to the free world
powers one of the most bitter lessons they had to
learn in dealing with World Communism -- the loss of
After fighting the Japanese militarists for fourteen
years, China had approached the end of World War II with high hopes. The war had been fought under a
dictatorship led by Chiang Kai-shek but his Nationalist Government had promised to set up a
democratic constitution as soon as national unity would permit. As the war ended Chiang Kai-shek
ordered the restoration of civil rights and inaugurated
freedom of the press.
The Chinese leaders knew their greatest threat to
peace was the small but well-trained army of Chinese Communists in the northwest; nevertheless, they went
right ahead with their plans for a constitution which would allow the Communists, full representation but would require them to disband their armed forces.
There was confidence that a representative
government could be worked out for all parties in China if armed insurrection were eliminated. In fact, Chiang Kai-shek invited the Communist leader, Mao
Tse-tung, to come to the capital and see if they could
reach a peaceful settlement of their difference.
Mao came. He promised to cooperate in setting up a
democracy but Chiang Kai-shek and his aides were
not at all impressed with his superficial display of
professed sincerity. Chiang later promised his
nervous associates that he would never relinquish his
dictatorial powers until he was completely satisfied
that the government was safely in the hands of a
substantial majority of the people -- not just some
noisy militant minority.
Effect of the Yalta Agreement on
Post-War China
An early blow to China's hopes for a post-war peace
came when it was learned that back in February,
1945, British and American diplomatic leaders at
Yalta had agreed to give Russia extensive property
rights in Manchuria if the Soviets would join in the war
against Japan. Chiang Kai-shek was outraged by this
unilateral arrangement (China was never consulted)
and he never ceased to blame much of the
subsequent disaster on this initial blunder.
The Yalta agreement allowed Russia to come racing
into Manchuria (and North Korea) just six days before
the Japanese capitulated. After a typically brutal
Russian occupation, the Soviet troops fixed the Communist grip on this territory which the Japanese
had extensively industrialized and which was one of
the richest agricultural regions in all China. In fact, it was Manchuria that the Nationalists were expecting to
use as the working base in bolstering China's
battered economy.
However, after taking Manchuria, Stalin suddenly and
unexpectedly agreed to withdraw his troops and
recognize the Nationalist Government of China as the
legal sovereign of that territory providing China would
acknowledge Russia's property rights in Manchuria which Stalin had previously demanded at Yalta. This
consisted of half ownership in the Manchurian
railroads and the right to lease Port Arthur as a Russian naval base. Under strong pressure from the United States and Great Britain, China signed this
agreement with Russia on August 14, 1945.
Almost immediately Chiang Kai-shek knew this was a
serious mistake. The treaty was nothing but a Russian
tool of strategy which legally codified the mistakes at
Yalta. As Chiang Kai-shek had feared, the Russians
operated the Manchurian railroads as though they
owned them outright. They not only set up a naval
base at Port Arthur, but arrogantly refused to allow the Chinese to use their own port of Dairen. Instead of
evacuating Manchuria, the Soviets began looting the
entire region of all its heavy industry and shipping it to Russia as "war booty." This represented a stunning
blow to China's future economic recovery.
But even more important than this was the Russians'
strategy of delaying the removal of their troops by
various pretexts until the Chinese Communists could
come in from the northwest and occupy Manchuria.
As the Communists came in, the Russians turned
over to them the vast quantities of ammunition and war material which they had seized from the
Consequently, when the Nationalists arrived to take
over Manchuria, they were outraged to find that the Chinese Communists were already dug in.
Immediately civil war loomed up as an inescapable
Chiang Kai-shek Attempts to Create
A Democracy in China
All of this was happening right at the time the Nationalists were trying to prepare China for a
constitutional form of government. On his own
initiative Chiang had set May 5, 1946, as the first meeting of the Chinese National Assembly in which
all parties were to take part. But, of course, this entire
program to unify and democratize China was
seriously jeopardized by the outbreak of war in Manchuria. At this point the U.S. diplomats decided to
take a hand.
They had planned the United Nations to preserve world Peace and had insisted from the beginning that
the Red leaders were potentially peaceful and had no
territorial ambitions. Assuming this to be true they
denounced Chiang for resisting the Chinese Reds.
They accused him of creating new world tensions. General George C. Marshall was therefore sent over
to China to stop the civil war.
General Marshall arrived in January, 1946. What
happened after that is a long series of incidents, each
one tragically demonstrating the error of trying to
incorporate the ideas of world revolutionists within the
framework of representative government.
The Communists demanded a coalition government
but insisted on keeping their own private army. They wanted a voice in the government of all China, but would not allow the central government to have a
voice in the affairs of Communist-occupied areas of
China. They agreed to a cease-fire and then launched
aggressive attacks as soon as it served their own
advantage to do so. They agreed to help set up a
State Council representing all parties and then
advised at the last moment that they would not
When the date for the first National Assembly was
postponed so the Communists could participate, they
used it as an excuse to accuse Chiang Kai-shek of
setting the new date without proper authorization.
After a second postponement, with the Communists
still refusing to participate, the National Assembly
finally convened on November 15, 1946, and a
democratic constitution was approved and adopted
on Christmas Day. But the Communists would have
no part of it.
Chiang Kai-shek became completely convinced that
the Communists would never negotiate a peaceful
settlement but were out to win the whole domain of
China by military conquest. He also believed the Communists could never represent the interests of
China because their policies were created and
imposed upon them by Moscow.
Time was to prove this analysis correct, but U.S.
diplomatic strategists were the last to be convinced --
and then only after the Chinese mainland had been
lost. Furthermore, Chiang could not convince the U.S.
diplomatic corps that he was justified in striking back when the Communists attacked him. When he tried to
regain the territory recently seized by Communists, it was described in Washington as "inexcusable
Disaster Strikes Down an Old U.S. Ally
Finally, in the summer of 1946, when the Communists
had repeatedly violated the truce agreement, the Nationalists decided to vigorously counterattack and
penetrate deep into Manchuria. The diplomats
frantically ordered Chiang to stop, but he refused to
do so. He said another truce would only allow the Communists time to re-group and come back even more fiercely than before. He also said it was his
intention to continue the campaign to forcibly disarm
the Communists and restore them to civilian status so
that China could get on with her program of
constitutional government without fear of constant
This line of reasoning did not appeal to the State
Department. Three different times Chiang was
ordered to issue an unconditional cease-fire. To make it stick a U.S. embargo was finally placed on all
aid to China. Only after United States aid abruptly
halted did Chiang reluctantly agree to a cease-fire. General Marshall stated: "As Chief of Staff I armed 39
anti-Communist divisions (in China), now with a
stroke of the pen I disarm them."
This proved a great boon to the Communists. While
the Nationalists were being held down by U.S.
diplomatic pressure the Communists re-grouped their
forces and prepared for the all-out campaign which
later proved fatal to China. It is strange that even after Chiang had surrendered his own best judgment and
issued a cease-fire, the U.S. embargo was not lifted.
The Nationalist forces sat idly by, consuming many of
their supplies which they feared would never be
replaced. Later, when the Red tide had begun to roll
in on Chiang, Congress did finally force through an
"Aid to China" bill, but actual delivery of goods was
not processed in time to be of any significant
From 1947 on, the morale of the Nationalist army
disintegrated. It seemed apparent to Chinese military
leaders that they were the victims of Communist
aggression on the one hand and the victims of a total
lack of insight by U.S. and British diplomats on the
After Chiang issued his unconditional cease-fire, General Marshall appealed to the Communist leaders
to reopen negotiations for settlement. The Communists replied, but talked as though they were
victors and made demands which even General
Marshall labeled as completely unreasonable. They wanted all the rich areas of Manchuria from which they
had just been driven. They wanted the National
Assembly dissolved and demanded a predominant
place in the proposed coalition government.
It was obvious that any hope of settlement under such
circumstances was impossible. General Marshall
accepted this as a Communist pronouncement that
the Communists were no longer interested in mediation and he therefore ended his mission by
having President Truman call him home. He returned
to America in January, 1947, and immediately
became the new U.S. Secretary of State.
The Wedemeyer Report
There were many leaders in the United States Government who were completely dissatisfied with
the way the Chinese Civil War had been handled.
Therefore, in the summer of 1947, General Albert C. Wedemeyer was sent to Asia under Presidential
orders to find out what was wrong in China. Upon his
return he submitted a report which was extremely
critical of the entire formula for peace which had been
followed by General Marshall and the diplomatic
corps. He indicated that not only had the interests of
free China been violated, but the self-interests of the United States and all her Allies had been
subordinated to the whims of the Communists. He
recommended prompt and voluminous aid to the Nationalist Government and predicted that the
situation could still be salvaged if help were provided
in time.
Unfortunately, this report fell into the hands of the very
people whom General Wedemeyer had criticized. Consequently, it was buried in department files for
nearly two years and was not brought to light until long
after it was too late to take the action it
Meanwhile, the forces of collapse were rapidly moving toward their inexorable climax. During 1947
and the early part of 1948 the armies of Chiang Kaishek held up remarkably well, but toward the latter
part of 1948, the lack of supplies and the internal
disintegration of the Chinese economy took its toll.
The fall of the Nationalist forces was not gradual -- it was sudden and complete. Many thousands
abandoned their positions and raced southward in
disorganized confusion but other thousands threw
down their arms and surrendered to Chinese Communists on the spot.
By September, 1949, the Communist leaders were
already wildly celebrating their victory as they set up
the "People's Republic of China." Shortly afterwards Chiang acknowledged he was temporarily beaten
and abandoned the mainland of China in order to flee with the straggling remnants of his army to Formosa.
The State Department White Paper
of 1949
The fall of free China produced a wave of boiling
indignation throughout the United States. Both
political leaders and lay citizens felt that somehow an
old ally had been subverted or betrayed. At the time
few Americans were really aware of what was
involved in the Chinese debacle, but they knew
Chiang Kai-shek and America's interests had
suffered a catastrophic defeat. There was widespread demand for the facts.
The men who had engineered the fatal Chinese policy
quickly collaborated on a report designed to justify
their handling of America's interests in the Far East. It was called "United States Relations With China" and was published as a "White Paper" in 1949. To many
people the arguments in this paper were highly
persuasive, but not to all; in fact, the loss of China
brought a startling awakening to some of those who
had been with General Marshall and had trusted the Communists almost to the very last.
One of these was America's ambassador to China
during that critical period, Dr. John Leighton Stuart.2
As a former missionary to China and president of
Yenching University; he could not help but evaluate the
fall of China as a vast human disaster. He criticized
himself for having a part in it and censured his
colleagues for trying to cover up their mistakes in the
White Paper.
Dr. Stuart frankly declared: "We Americans (who were carrying out the China policy) mainly saw the
good things about the Chinese Communists, while not
noticing care fully the intolerance, bigotry, deception,
disregard for human life, and other evils which seem
to be inherent in any totalitarian system. We kept
Communist meanings for such adjectives as
progressive, democratic, liberal, also bourgeois,
reactionary, imperialist, as they intended we should
do. We failed to realize fully the achievements to date
and the potentialities of Chinese democracy.
Therefore, we cannot escape a part of the
responsibility of the great catastrophe -- not only for China, but also for America and the free world -- the
loss of the Chinese mainland."
Concerning the White Paper he said: "I was, in fact, merely one of many persons who were perplexed and
filled with apprehension by what they found in this
extraordinary book.... It is clear that the purpose was
not to produce a 'historian's history' but to select materials which had been used in making the policy in
effect at the moment. What had been omitted were materials rejected in the making of policy, materials which had not been relied upon."
This had been General Wedemeyer's complaint. The
diplomatic strategists were not willing to neither
recognize the realities of the situation nor reverse
their evaluation of Communist leaders even though
the evidence of duplicity was everywhere.
An Amazing Development
By 1949 there was little excuse for any alert American
to further deceived by Communist strategy. Dozens of
American-Communist spies had been exposed, the
leading American Communists had been arrested by
the FBI and convicted of conspiring to overthrow the U.S. Government by violence, Whittaker Chambers,
Elizabeth Bentley and a swarm of exCommunist
agents had laid bare their souls, the Western Allies
had gone through the vicious squeeze play of the
Berlin blockade and the United States had spent
billions in foreign aid to keep Russia from consuming
all of Europe the same way she had taken over China.
But in spite of all this, a meeting was sponsored by
the State Department in October, 1949, which almost
defies explanation.
It was held for the announced purpose of deciding what the "experts" believed should be done in the Far
East. The meeting was presided over by Philip
Jessup of the State Department, and those in
attendance included not only State Department
officials, but many select guests who were interested
in Asia. Dr. John Leighton Stuart was present and
afterwards expressed deep apprehension concerning
the slant of the entire discussion. Harold Stassen was
also present and later testified that the majority
present favored the following policies:
1. European aid should be given priority over Asia.
2. Aid to Asia should not be started until after a "long
and careful study."
3. Russian Communists should be considered "not as
aggressive as Hitler" and "not as apt to take direct military action to expand their empire."
4. Communist China should be recognized by the U.S.
5. Britain and India should be urged to follow suit in
recognizing the Chinese Communists.
6. The Chinese Communists should be allowed to
take over Formosa.
7. The Communists should be allowed to take over Hong Kong from Britain if the Communists insisted.
8. Nehru should not be given aid because of his
"reactionary and arbitrary tendencies."
9. The Nationalist blockade of China should be
broken and economic aid sent to the Communist mainland.
10. No aid should be sent to Chiang or to the anti- Communist guerillas in South China.
Two of the men at the conference who were foremost
in promoting these policies were Owen Lattimore and
Lawrence Rosinger. Both were eventually identified
by Louis Budenz (former editor of the Daily Worker
testifying under oath) as members of the Communist
Even if there had been no such identification, the
glaring truth which every man at the conference should
have known was the fact that this entire list of policies was a car bon copy of the prevailing "party line"
coming out of Moscow. For months these very
policies had been hammered out in every edition of
the Communist press. It was a singular commentary
on the judgment and professional discernment of
those officials who fell in with these fantastic
recommendations -- particularly in the light of the
provocative and inflammatory policies which Russia was using at that very moment to threaten nations in
nearly every region of the free world.
Three months after this conference, the new Secretary
of State, Dean Acheson, announced several policies
portending the loss of Formosa and the liquidation of
the Chinese Nationalists by the Communists. First, he
overruled the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff (to give strong military aid to Chiang) by
announcing on January 12, 1950, that the principles
itemized above as point No. 6 and point No. 10 was
to be official U.S. policy. He also stated that the U.S.
defense perimeter in the Pacific did not include either
Formosa or South Korea. He stated that if an attack
should occur outside the U.S. defense perimeter "the
initial reliance must be on the people attacked to
resist it." Then he suggested that they could appeal to
the United Nations.
This was simply a blunt statement that the U.S.
diplomats were abandoning Formosa and Korea.
This announcement was shocking to many students of
the Far East, not only because the policy violated U.S.
self-interest, but because it literally invited Communist
attack on these free-world allies by giving advance
notice that these areas could be invaded without
interference from the United States.
It took just six months for the Communists to select
and prepare their point of attack. They chose the
practically defenseless territory of South Korea as the
first theater of war
The Communist Attack on South
It will be recalled that the Yalta agreement allowed
Russia to take over North Korea at the same time the
Soviets occupied Manchuria. As elsewhere, the Russians did not withdraw their troops until a strong
Communist puppet government was firmly
entrenched. As for South Korea, U.S. forces occupied
the territory up to the 38th parallel.
During 1949 a United Nations mandate required both
Russia and the U.S. to withdraw their troops. The Russians left behind them a powerful North Korean Red Army consisting of 187,000 well-trained and wellequipped troops, 173 Russian tanks, quantities of
Russian-built artillery and 200 Russian planes. On the
other hand, South Korea was a new-born Republic with an army of 96,000 men who were poorly
equipped with practically no tanks, anti-tank weapons,
heavy artillery or fighter planes. This meant that by the
end of 1949 South Korea was even more vulnerable
to attack from North Korea than Formosa was from
Communist China. And the Washington diplomats
had assured both Formosa and Korea that in case of
attack they definitely could not expect any military help
from the United States. As spokesman for the
diplomatic left-wing contingent, Owen Lattimore
explained the situation: "The thing to do is let South
Korea fall, but not to let it look as if we pushed it."4
In the early dawn of Sunday, June 25, 1950, 8
divisions of the North Korean Red Army spilled
across the 38th parallel and plunged southward
toward the city of Seoul. Frantic calls went out from
President Sigmund Rhee to the Security Council of
the United Nations, to President Truman in Washington and to General Douglas MacArthur in
Japan. All three responded. The Security Council
pronounced North Korea guilty of a breach of the
peace and ordered her troops back to the 38th
parallel. (If Russia had been represented, she no
doubt would have vetoed this action, but the Soviet
delegates were boycotting the Security Council
because China continued to be represented by the Nationalists rather than by the Chinese Communists.)
General MacArthur responded by flying to Korea and
reporting the desperate situation to Washington.
President Truman responded by completely reversing
the policy of his diplomatic advisers and ordering
General MacArthur to pour U.S. ground troops in from
Japan to stop the red tide. Thus the war began.
For several weeks the situation looked very black. General MacArthur was made supreme commander
of all United Nations forces, but at first these were so
limited that the shallow beachhead at Pusan was
about all they could hold. Then General MacArthur
formulated a desperate plan. It was so difficult and
illogical that he felt certain it would come to the Communists as a complete surprise. It did. On
September 15, half way up the Korean Peninsula, the U.S. Navy (with two British carriers), the Air Force,
Army and Marine Corps combined to launch an
ingenious invasion at Inchon -- a point where the 29-
foot tide made a landing seem fantastic. Split-second
timing permitted landings and the next thing the North
Koreans knew they were trapped in the jaws of a mighty military pincer movement which cut across
their supply lines and then rapidly closed in to wipe
out the flower of the whole North Korean Army which,
of course, was concentrated in the South. It was a magnificent victory.
MacArthur then turned his armies toward the north.
The ROK's (South Koreans) went up the East Coast
while other U.N. troops went up the West Coast. In
doing this, General MacArthur was required to act on
obscure hints rather than specific directions from Washington and the U.N. For a while it appeared that
he might be forbidden to pursue the enemy forces
retreating to the North.
By the middle of October the coastal spearheads of
the U.N. offensive were nearing the northernmost
parts of Korea and the war appeared practically over.
There was the immediate prospect of unifying the
entire Korean Peninsula and setting up a democratic
republic. Then, in November, unexpectedly disaster
From across the northern Korean boundary of the
Yalu River came the first flood tide of what turned out
to be a Chinese Communist army of one million men.
As these troops came pouring into North Korea, the U.N. forces found themselves smothered by a great wave of fanatical, screaming, and suicidal humanity. MacArthur radioed to Washington: "We face an
entirely new war!"
The U.N. lines were cut to ribbons as their wall of
defense was pushed back below the 38th parallel. General MacArthur could scarcely believe that the Chinese Communists would dare to risk the massive
retaliation of the United States atomic bombing Air
Force by this inexcusable assault on U.N. forces. However, what he did not know, but soon discovered, was the appalling fact that the Chinese had already
been assured by their intelligence agents that the
diplomats in Washington, London and New York were
not going to allow MacArthur to retaliate with the U.S.
Air Force. MacArthur was going to be restricted to
"limited" warfare.
It was in this hour that General MacArthur found that
pro-Communist forces in the U.N. and left-wing
sympathizers in the State Department were
swamping the policies of the White House, the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and those who had charge of the
Korean War. He found that vast supplies which he
badly needed were being diverted to Europe in
accordance with point No. 1 of the State Department
Conference. He was specifically restricted from
following Chinese jets to their bases or bombing the Manchurian Railroad which was dumping mountains
of supplies on the north banks of the Yalu River. He was forbidden to bomb the Yalu bridge over which
troops and supplies were funneled, and his own
supplies and replacements were cut back to the point where a counter-offensive became strategically
difficult, if not impossible. The final blow came when
the diplomats flatly turned down Chiang Kai-shek's
enthusiastic offer to send thousands of trained
Nationalist troops from Formosa to fight in Korea.
Over a period of four months General MacArthur watched the slaughter resulting from these stalemate
policies. Finally, he could contain himself no longer. He violated a presidential gag order dated December
6, 1950, and answered a written inquiry from
Congressman Joseph W. Martin concerning the
inexplicable reverses which U.N. forces were
suffering in Korea. The General's letter giving
recommendations for the winning of the war was read
in Congress April 5, 1951, and five days later,
President Truman ordered MacArthur summarily withdrawn from all commands.
General MacArthur was relieved by General Matthew
B. Ridgeway and he returned to the United States
completely perplexed by the sudden termination of his military career. It was not until he landed in San
Francisco and met the first wave of shouting,
cheering, admiring fellow citizens that he realized that
the sickness in the American body politic was not in
all its members but only in one corner of its head.
It will be recalled that two more years of military
stagnation followed the recall of General MacArthur.
Subsequently, hearings before Congressional
committees permitted General Mark Clark, General
George E. Stratemeyer, General James A. Van Fleet,
Admiral Charles Joy and others to explain what
happened to their commands in Korea. Each one
verified the fact that the military was never permitted
to fight a winning war. The diplomats had imposed
upon them a theory called "Communist Containment," which in actual operation resulted in the containment
of the U.N. fighting forces instead of the Communists.
It soon became apparent that the Korean War had
been run by the same team and according to the
same policies as those which resulted in the fall of
It was also to be revealed at a later date that not only
had the machinations of confused diplomats
contributed to the semi-defeat in Korea but that
fulltime under-cover agents of Soviet Russia had often
stood at the elbows of officials in London, Washington
and at the U.N. in New York to argue the Moscow line.
Among the high-level spies for Russia during this
critical period were two top British diplomats, Donald
MacLean and Guy Burgess. MacLean was head of
the American desk in Britain's diplomatic
headquarters at London; Burgess was the second
secretary of the British Embassy in Washington. Both
fled behind the Iron Curtain when they were about to
be arrested by British Intelligence.
The Korean Armistice
By the time President Eisenhower took office in
January, 1953, there was a general feeling of gloom
and despair concerning Korea. The people
desperately desired to somehow stop the bloodshed.
The hopes for peace were suddenly accelerated by a
news flash of March 5 which swept round the world.
Joseph Stalin was dead!
The next day a new government took over in Russia
and the leader turned out to be Stalin's former
secretary and the keeper of the secret Communist
files -- Georgi Malenkov. He had seized power by
joining forces with Lavrenti P. Beria, head of the
secret police who had an army of agents and troops
numbering two million. Beria also had charge of the
forced labor camps and supervised the atomic
energy plants.
However, when Malenkov and Beria took over as
heirs of Stalin they immediately found themselves
confronted by an explosive economic crisis. Pressure was building up inside Russia (and her satellites) just
as it did in 1922 and again in 1932. Malenkov
therefore offered respite to his people: "Let us now
lay heavy industry aside for awhile. The people cannot
eat heavy industry.... We should care for the needs of
our people." This was the beginning of a radical new
policy for the USSR. At home the slogan was "More
Food"; abroad Malenkov's slogan was a campaign
for "Peaceful Coexistence" with all the democracies.
It was just twenty-three days after Stalin died that the Communist Chinese acted on their new signals and
opened negotiations with the U.N. commanders for an
armistice. This finally led to the signing of a truce on
July 27, 1953. It became effective twelve days later.
Thus ended the Korean War. It had cost the United
States 20 billion dollars and more than 135,000
casualties. It had cost South Korea 1 million dead;
another million maimed and wounded 9 million left
homeless and saddled South Korea with 4 million
refugees from North Korea.
The U.S. Summarily Abandons Its
Twenty-Year Policy of Appeasement
The people of the United States came out of the
Korean War sadder and wiser than when they went in.
Authorities have stated that two things happened in
the Korean War which may yet brand it as the
greatest blunder the Communist strategists ever made. First, it awakened the United States to the
necessity of vigorously rearming and staying armed
so long as the Communist threat exists. Second, it
demonstrated to the people of the United States the
inherent weaknesses of the United Nations. As
Senator Robert A. Taft summed it up: "The United
Nations serves a very useful purpose as a town meeting of the world ... but it is an impossible weapon
against forcible aggression."
Back in 1950 when the U.N. called upon all its members to furnish the means to resist the Communists, only 16 countries responded with the
highly essential ingredient of armed troops.
Altogether, these 16 nations furnished an army of
35,000 fighting men. Little South Korea maintained a
fighting force of 400,000 men while the United States made up the difference by furnishing a force of
350,000. More than one million American GI's had to
be rotated through Korea to maintain the U.S. quota
of military strength. In the mind of the average
American the U.N. had therefore ceased to represent
"collective security."
It was difficult to forget that while Americans and
South Koreans were taking the brunt of the war, Russia and Britain had both violated the U.N.
embargo by shipping strategic materials to Red
China. On the floor of the U.N., Andrei Vishinsky had
thrown down the Russian challenge: "The Soviet
Union has never concealed the fact that it sold and
continues to sell armaments to its ally, China!"
The end of the Korean War marked the end of an era. During the summer of 1953 the United States served
notice on Britain and France that if the Communists
broke the cease-fire agreement in Korea we would
immediately launch a major war against China. Both
Britain and France agreed to support this stand. Many
did not realize it at the time, but by this action the United States was passing the death sentence a
twenty-year-old policy of Communist appeasement.
The Role of the FBI in the Battle of
the Underground
No one could have welcomed the end of
appeasement with greater relief than John Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI and the number-one law
enforcement personality in the United States. Since
1919 he had struggled to illuminate the minds of
government leaders as well as the public generally
concerning the conspiratorial nature of Communism.
As an assistant to the Attorney General in 1919 he
had prepared one of the first legal briefs reflecting the
subversive aspects of the worldwide Communist movement.
During the twenty years of appeasement, when many
Americans had been lulled into a sense of security by
the "sweet talk of Communist United Front
propaganda," John Edgar Hoover had struck out with
two-listed blows at the Red menace which was
gnawing at the vitals of American life:
"The American Communist ... must be placed in the
same category as the Ku Klux Klan, the now defunct
German-American Bund, and other totalitarian
groups.... As common criminals seek the cover of
darkness, Communists, behind the protection of false
fronts, carry on their sinister and vicious program,
intent on swindling and robbing Americans of their
heritage of freedom."
John Edgar Hoover was a great disappointment to
the Communists. In most countries the Red leaders
had been able to completely discredit the agencies
handling the police powers of government by blasting
them with charges of corruption and violation of civil
liberties. However, the Director of the FBI had spent
his adult lifetime building the FBI so that the public would know that any such charges would be false and
Over the years the public had learned that FBI agents
spent as much time checking out innocent suspects
as they spent in ferreting out the guilty. In fact, by
careful investigation and humane treatment of the
guilty, the FBI had secured confessions in 85 percent
of its cases.5
Therefore, the Communists were deeply disappointed
with the results of their campaign to portray the FBI as
an American Gestapo. The Communists leaders were further embittered by the knowledge that the FBI
had trained its personnel to be just what governmental
officers in a free nation should be -- alert, intelligent,
scientific and hard working. And what particularly
frightened the Reds was the quiet methodical way in which Bureau agents went after subversives -- all of which foreshadowed a day of reckoning for Communist strategists.
It came July 20, 1948, when all the top leaders the Communist Party of America were indicted. The "Big
Eleven" who stood trial were all convicted. Six of their
attorneys were also fined or imprisoned for
contemptuous conduct during the trial. Four of the
eleven Communists jumped their $20,000 bail bond
and the FBI had to launch an international
investigation to have them returned.
Shortly afterwards the Government became
convinced that Soviet espionage agents had been
stealing atomic information and the FBI was given
jurisdiction. Within weeks the FBI had gristed through
tons of records, interviewed hundreds of "restricted"
employees at various atomic energy plants and
emerged from the slow elimination process to point
the finger of justice at a physicist, Klaus Fuchs, who
had spent considerable time at Los Alamos. However, at that moment the German-born,
naturalized Britisher was the dignified director of
England's atomic energy establishment at Harwell.
Acting on the FBI tip that Klaus Fuchs was the
principal suspect in the subversion of the free world's monopoly of the atomic bomb, British Intelligence went to work. Within one month they saw some
evidence that the FBI might be right. After another month they had no doubt about it. On February 3,
1949, the British announced that Fuchs had been
arrested and had made a full confession.
Fuch's confession sent the FBI on another hunt. Fuchs
said he gave packets of information dealing with the
atomic bomb to a person known to him only as
"Raymond." This person had to be identified and
located since he was apparently the courier who
delivered the bomb secrets to the Soviet Consulate in New York. Although the FBI had nothing to start with
but a physical description, a phony name and the
possibility that the courier might be a chemist, agents
finally came the right man. It was HarryGold.
Harry Gold confessed and this enabled the FBI to
finally unravel the answer to a question which had
puzzled the whole nation: "How did the Russians get
hold of information on the ingenious trigger mechanism of the atomic bomb which should have
taken the Russians many years to discover?" Harry
Gold said they stole it. The FBI once more took up the
trail and this time it led to the doorstep of two U.S.
citizens, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.
The investigation revealed that Julius Rosenberg had
pressured his young brother-in-law, David
Greenglass, to turn over to Harry Gold and himself all
the basic information about the trigger device without which the bomb could not be exploded, David
Greenglass worked at the atomic energy laboratory at
Los Alamos and had a rather intimate knowledge of
the construction of the bomb and the lens apparatus
by which it was detonated. Greenglass was finally
induced to draw up sketches of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima and to provide detailed drawings of the
detonator lens. The Rosenbergs then channeled this
information into the regular Russian espionage
As soon as the Communist scientists received this
data they quickly closed the gap in the atomic race
and exploded a Russian bomb. It will be recalled that
this came as a great shock to the startled West. The Red leaders capitalized on this temporary advantage
by rattling their atomic sabers and telling the Communist leaders in China and North Korea to start
casting about for some early military conquest.
Eagerly they went to work preparing for the Korean War. In fact, by the time Julius and Ethel Rosenberg
had been convicted and were ready for sentence the United States was in the midst of the Korean conflict.
Thousands of American lives were being sacrificed to
hold back the tide of desolation which the Rosenbergs had helped to turn loose.
Judge Irving Robert Kaufman looked down at this man and woman and said:
"Plain, deliberate contemplated murder is dwarfed in magnitude by comparison with the crime you have
committed.... I believe your conduct in putting into the
hands of the Russians the A-bomb, years before our
best scientists predicted Russia would perfect the
bomb has already caused in my opinion, the Communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant
casualties exceeding 50,000 and who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of
your treason. Indeed, by your betrayal you
undoubtedly have altered the course of history....
"What I am about to say is not easy for me. I have
deliberated for hours, days and nights.... I have
searched the records -- I have searched my
conscience -- to find some reason for mercy -- for it is
only human to be merciful and it is natural to try and
spare lives. I am convinced, however, that I would
violate the solemn and sacred trust that the people of
this land have placed in my hands were I to show
leniency to the defendants Rosenberg. It is not in my
power, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, to forgive you. Only the Lord can find mercy for what you have done
... you are hereby sentenced to the punishment of
David Greenglass was sentenced to fifteen years.
It was a tragic chapter in American history, but it
verified Mr. Hoover's original assertion that the Red
leaders "carry on their sinister and vicious program,
intent on swindling and robbing Americans of their
heritage of freedom."
But John Edgar Hoover knew that the communist
revolutionists would never try to strike their final,
deadly blow at the United States as long as they were
losing the battle of the underground. He also felt that
carefully selected and carefully trained young
Americans could match stratagems with the Red
leaders and win. The history of the FBI during Mr. Hoover's remarkable administration gives ample
justification for his feelings of enthusiasm and
complete confidence in the ultimate victory of
America's underground soldiers of freedom.
The Crack in the Iron Curtain
By 1953 the Kremlin was not only suffering
embarrassment abroad but a wide crack in the Iron Curtain revealed that the Communist empire was in
desperate straits at home. The myth of Communist
strength and unity was uncovered. East Germany riots
broke out as the people faced tanks with bricks and
bare hands. To make matters worse, insubordinate Russian officers and soldiers had to be executed for
refusing to fire into the German crowds. A rash of
uprisings also broke out in Czechoslovakia and
threatened to break out in Poland, Bulgaria and the Ukraine.
For over fortyyears the collectivized farms have continuallyfailed
to fulfill the dream of overwhelming abundance expected by Communist leaders. In 1954 official reports showed thatRussia was
producing even less food than it did in 1928 under the NEP.
Economists discovered from admissions of Malenkov
in his speeches and official releases that Russians were working 38 hours a week for food that took only
26 hours to earn in 1928. Furthermore, Russia -- with
a substantial increase in population -- was producing
less food under State Socialism than she had
produced under the NEP in 1928. The riots in the
satellite countries were the result of the realization that
Russia would probably never fulfill her propaganda
promise to furnish them food, clothing and machinery. On the contrary, the bankrupt USSR had been feeding
like a great parasite on the satellite countries.
In contrast to the Iron Curtain countries the Western
European nations were enjoying the greatest period
of prosperity in forty years. The American people had
donated 50 billion dollars to the post-war recovery of
these countries and they were rapidly reaching the
point where they could begin to stand alone. There was a healthy resurgence faith in free enterprise
capitalism as the United States reached the zenith of
its prosperity and demonstrated its capacity to not
only produce more wealth than any other nation but to
distribute it more equitably among its people.
A leading Socialist in Britain, Professor W. Arthur
Lewis, openly acknowledged that Socialism had been
a great disappointment in England: "What has been
done ... is to transfer property not to the workers but to
the Government. Workers continue to be employees,
subject to all the frustrations working under orders in
large undertakings.... Those who expected
nationalization to raise wages have ... been
disappointed.... It does not solve the problem of labor
relations; it reduces private wealth ... it raises
unsolved problems of control; and it raises the issue
of how much power we want our Government to
The Communist Conquest in Indo- China
After the Korean Armistice the Chinese Communists
did not allow Russia's domestic problems to dull their
appetite for further aggression. They marched off to
complete the Red conquest of Indo-China. Originally
the war in Indo-China had been an attempt by the
native population to free itself from French
colonialism. However, Red infiltration by Communist
Chinese had finally changed the conflict from a war for
freedom to a war between France and the Chinese Reds. The compromising influence of the French
Communist Party (the largest single party in France) made the fatal outcome of the war dependent only on
the passing of time. Defeat to the French came on
July 21, 1954. At Geneva the Red Chinese jubilantly
agreed to stop fighting in exchange for 12,000,000
people and 61,000 square miles of Indo-China.
Mao Tse-tung was now intoxicated with double
success. Even Russia felt it necessary to make
concessions to Mao and his Chinese Communists in
order to insure their continued loyalty to the Communist Motherland. In October, 1954, Russian
officials trekked to Peiping and flattered Mao with the
following promises:
1. To evacuate Port Arthur which Russia was
authorized to lease at Yalta.
2. To sell to China (on easy terms) the railroads and
other industries which Russia had been operating
since the war as a "Partner."
3. To loan China 130,000,000 dollars.
4. To help build two railroads across China.
5. To help China build 15 new heavy industrial
6. To campaign for the seizure of Formosa.
7. To campaign for the inclusion of Japan in the Communist orbit.
It was apparent that even though Russia was talking
"peaceful coexistence" the free world would have little
relief from the war-making plans of Red China.
The Task of Isolating a World
From the point of view of the United States, the Indo- China fiasco was a dismal political tragedy. The 100
Communists in the French Parliament (who even
refused to stand in tribute to the French war dead)
engineered the collapse of the seven-year war. As the U.S. Secretary of State addressed the armistice meeting at Geneva he lashed out at the cowardice
and subversion which had sacrificed 12,000,000 more human beings to Red aggression: "Peace," he
said, "is always easy to achieve -- by surrender. Unity
is also easy to achieve -- by surrender. The hard task,
the task that confronts us, is to combine peace and
unity with Freedom!"
Secretary Dulles left Geneva to carry out a feverish,
round-the-world campaign to get all free nations to make an "agonizing reappraisal" of the ridiculous
concessions which were being made to Communist
imperialism. In 20 months he covered over 152,000 miles and when he was through the United States had
become a party to (or strengthened its position in) a
chain of regional compacts specifically designed to
reinforce Communist containment. To the dismay of
the Soviet strategists, Article 52 of the U.N. Charter
contained a loophole which permitted this procedure.
Therefore, the United States openly began to use NATO, SEATO and similar regional organizations as
collective agencies for mutual security. To a large
collective agencies for mutual security. To a large
extent this nullified the paralyzing choke-hold which
the Soviets had previously held on the West through
its abusive use of the veto power in the U.N. Security
The United States also announced that she did not
intend to sit back and watch Russia construct its
armada of long-range bombers which Communist
press releases described as capable of dropping Hbombs on American cities. The U.S. answer to this was the rapid construction of a ring of U.S. defense
bases on the fringe of the Iron Curtain. Immediately
the roar of an injured bear came thundering out of
Russia: "We are being threatened with annihilation!"
Secretary Dulles soberly reaffirmed a truth which he was well aware the Communists already knew --
namely, that no nation need fear these bases except
an aggressor. Then he expounded in clear-cut, hardhitting terminology the new doctrine of "massive
retaliation" which he warned would be triggered
instantly in case the Soviet Empire dared fulfill its oft
repeated threat of a surprise attack on the free world.
For awhile there was an ominous silence in Moscow.
Russia Tests the New U.S. "Get
Tough" Policy
Toward the latter part of 1954 it became apparent
that serious political adjustments were going on
inside Russia. A bellicose, bullet-headed personality
named Nikita S. Khrushchev and a punctilious party
politician named Nikolai Bulganin began to appear more frequently in the news. An ex-Soviet official
(Nikolai E. Khokhlov) declared this to be a bad sign. He described Khrushchev and Bulganin as promoters
of world Communism, in contrast to Malenkov and
Beria who wanted first to improve living conditions for Russians.
In the fall of 1954, Khrushchev and Bulganin led a
delegation to Peiping. There the Chinese were given
instructions to prepare for an assault on Formosa.
From this, it became apparent that completely new
lines of power had been drawn in Russia. Eventually it
came out that Malenkov had deserted his partner,
Beria, and joined forces with the new KhrushchevBulganin forces. In the latter part of December, Beria
and three of his aides were shot. Malenkov was
summarily demoted but he had switched sides in time
to save his life. Bulganin took his place and
Khrushchev hovered in the background setting policy
and announcing the new slogans, "return to heavy
industry -- armaments" and "the growing of food by
Meanwhile the Chinese Communists had also caught
the spirit of the new leadership and began fronting for Moscow by tantalizing the democracies with the
shocking announcement that they had deliberately
held back U.S. officers and men in violation of the
prisoner-exchange agreement at the close of the
Korean War.
The armistice agreement at Panmunjom had
specifically provided that all U.N. prisoners who
desired repatriation would be returned even though
some of them might be charged with some crime. Now, however, the Chinese Communists were
defiantly announcing that they had secretly held back
a number of American prisoners because they were
charged with espionage or some other type of crime. U.S. indignation reached a white heat as many
Americans began to realize for the first time how
completely impossible it is to depend on a Communist pledge.
In spite of public indignation, however, American
feelings were somewhat compromised at this
particular moment by a rapidly growing desire on the
part of many citizens to forget the whole foreign
"mess" and get on with home-front developments which promised to provide an all-time record of
American free enterprise prosperity.
Mao Tse-tung accurately diagnosed this national
feeling as an anti-war sentiment, and he therefore
accelerated his campaign of propaganda throughout
Asia by representing the United States as a "paper
tiger." He taunted the United States with additional
disclosures of illegally-held American prisoners of war
and by open implication boastfully defied the United
States Government to try and do something about it.
He became so enthusiastic in his campaign that he
finally decided to prove the impotency of American
influence to the entire world by acting on Khrushchev's
fighting orders and strike at Formosa. In a matter of weeks the offshore islands in the hands of the Nationalists began to be bombed from the Chinese mainland. It was the preliminary phase of an all-out
attack on Chiang Kai-shek's last outpost.
This was a highly critical hour for the United States
since she had committed herself to defend Formosa.
If she wavered, the light of freedom could very easily
go out in Southeast Asia. One-half billion "neutral"
Asians also watched keenly as U.S. leaders measured the risk and fathomed the depths of their
own moral convictions.
Early in February, 1955, the Chinese Reds and the
other World Communists got their answer. It was a U.S. Congressional resolution supported by both
parties which confirmed the authority of the President
of the United States to throw the Seventh Fleet into
the Formosa Straits and give orders to wage an allout war if attacked. This would obviously include the
use of nuclear weapons.
The "little nations" of South East Asia stood up and
cheered. It was apparent that the U.S. not only had the will to talk "massive retaliation" but the will to wage it.
At the Afro-Asian conference at Bandung several of
the little nations boldly showed their colors. They
badgered the Chinese Communist delegates with
cries of "Communist colonialism" and "Communist
aggression." It was a severe blow to the prestige and
propaganda of Mao Tse-tung and his Communist
backers in Moscow.
Within a matter of weeks the "stand firm" policy of the U.S. and her Pacific Allies began bearing miraculous
fruit. Orders went out from Moscow that coexistence was once more the sweet theme of the hour. The Chinese began releasing U.S. prisoners they had
held illegally. The issue of Formosa was allowed to
slip quietly into the background. Khrushchev extended
an invitation to the United States to exchange visitors
-- editors, congressmen, farmers -- he even said he might come himself sometime. All over the world the
hard-knuckled tension of the ten post-war years
began to subside. There seemed to be general
satisfaction with the new and unexpected turn of
events throughout the world and the democracies
settled back once more to the pursuit of their own
normal domestic affairs.
But in the midst of it all came a sinister warning from
military intelligence. Reports indicated that while the
emphasis of "soft" policies toward the democracies was being promoted abroad a tough, imperialistic
policy was being fed to the troops at home. Soviet
troops were being taught that the "importance of the
surprise factor in contemporary war has increased
enormously," and "the Communist Party demands
that the whole personnel of our Army and Navy should
be imbued with the spirit of maximum vigilance and
constant and high military preparedness, so as to be
able to wrest the initiative from the hands of the
enemy, and, having delivered smashing blows
against him, finally defeat him completely."7
All this had a familiar spirit. It reminded alert
Americans of a significant statement made by Dimitry
Z. Manuilsky who represented the USSR in presiding
over the Security Council of the United Nations in
1949. At the Lenin School of Political Warfare in Moscow he had taught:
"War to the hilt between communism and capitalism
is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong
enough to attack.... To win we shall need the element
of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to
sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most
spectacular peace movements on record. There will
be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions.
The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will
rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will
leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their
guard is down, we shall smash them with our
clenched fist!"8
1. James F. Byrnes, "Speaking Frankly," Harpers, New York,
2. For a rather full report by this official who saw the fall of China see Fifty Years In China, by John Leighton Stuart, Random House,NewYork, 1955.
3. See Report of the McCarren Committee To the Senate, p.
1049 and also Report of the Hearings on Philip Jessup's Nomination, pp. 714-721. For Budenz's testimony, see Report
of the McCarren Committee To the Senate, p. 148.
4.Afull article on this theme appeared in the New York Daily
Compass, July17, 1949.
5. The role of the FBI is well presented in The FBI Story, by Don Whitehead,Random House, 1956.
6. U.S. News & World Report, "Socialists Sour on Socialism,"
July8, 1955, p. 48.
7. Article in Pravda, May 5, 1955, by Major General D. Korniyenko.
8. Quoted by Joseph Z. Kornfeder who was a student at the
school. In a letter to Dr. J.D. Bales of Harding College dated March 7, 1961, Mr. Kornfeder said: "Enclosed is a copy of the
quote you asked for. It is part of what he (Manuilsky) said to a
group of senior Lenin School students at a conference held in Moscow, March, 1930, at which I, as one of the students, was
Chapter Ten
Communism Under Khrushchev
By 1955 it was vividly apparent that the most vicious
kind of political in-fighting was being waged in Moscow by the Communist contestants for Stalin's
throne. Already Beria and his aides had been shot.
There were signs of vast power shifts behind the
scenes and out of the rancor and roar of the secret
battle in the Kremlin the personality which seemed to
be emerging on top of the conspiratorial heap was Nikita Khrushchev.
Of all the contenders for power in Russia, Khrushchev was probably the least well known in the West.
Therefore, a U.S. Congressional committee decided
to get the Khrushchev story. They invited anyone who
had known Khrushchev to come in and testify. A
stream of witnesses responded, but the story they told was gruesome and ugly. The hopes of many Western
diplomats for improved Russian relations collapsed
as they heard the record of the Red leader with whom
free men would now have to deal. Here was no
ordinary Communist politician or party hack.
Khrushchev was revealed to be a creature of criminal
cunning with an all-consuming passion for power.
Khrushchev as the Dictator of the
Many of the witnesses told of the early days when
Khrushchev was first grasping for power and
recognition. They revealed that his loyalty to Communism was the blind, senseless kind. Having
been raised almost an illiterate; Khrushchev did not
get his elementary education until after he had
become a full-grown adult. As a boy he had been a
shepherd, later learning the trade of blacksmith and
At 17 he ran away from the obscure Ukrainian village
of Kalinovka where he had been born April 17, 1894.
For several years Khrushchev was a roaming itinerant worker but in 1918 he joined the Communist Party
and fought with the Red Army during the Russian civil war. In 1922 he commenced his first formal education which lasted three years. By 1929 his dogged party
loyalty had won him a berth in the Joseph Stalin
Industrial Academy, and by 1931 he had become a
local party official in Moscow.
Khrushchev soon won favor with Stalin by joining in a
drive to purge Stalin's enemies from the local party machinery. More than 500 men and women were
turned over to the secret police for execution. Later
Stalin said that while Khrushchev was repulsive to
him, he was impressed with the Ukrainian's capacity
to kill or turn on old friends when party policy
demanded it. Stalin therefore assigned Khrushchev
the task of going back to the Ukraine and forcing his
own people to live under the lash of total Communist
suppression. The Red leaders had been using wholesale executions to stifle resistance. Khrushchev
said he had a better way. He would use mass
starvation! Witnesses to this man-made famine told
of the suffering and death:
Nicholas Prychodoko: I observed covered wagons moving along the street on which I lived and also on
other streets in Kiev. They were hauling corpses for
disposal.... These were peasants who flocked to the
cities for some crust of bread.... My personal friend ... was a surgeon at a hospital in the Ukraine.... He put a white frock on me, just as he was in a white frock, and we went outside to a very large garage in the hospital
area. He and I entered it. When he switched on the
light, I saw 2,000 to 3,000 corpses laid along the walls.
Mr. Arens: What caused the death of these people?
Mr. Prychodoko: Starvation.
Mr. Arens: What caused the starvation?
Mr. Prychodoko: ... We found some statistics in
hiding places in the cellar of the Academy of
Sciences. They revealed that the food in 1932 was
sufficient to feed all Ukrainians for 2 years and 4 months. But except for about 10 percent, the crop was
immediately dispatched from the threshing machines
for export to parts outside of Ukraine. That was the
cause of the hunger.
Mr. Arens: Why did the Communist regime seize the
crops in Ukraine during this period?
Mr. Prychodoko: Because at all times there was ...
various kinds of resistance to the Communist
government in Ukraine and the collectivization drive in Moscow....
Mr. Arens: How many people were starved to death
by this man-made famine in Ukraine in the thirties?
Mr. Prychodoko: It is estimated to be 6 to 7 million, most of them peasants.1
Witnesses testified that after millions of lives had
been destroyed under Khrushchev's administration,
the collectivized farms were finally set up. Khrushchev was rewarded in 1934 when Stalin appointed him to
the powerful Central Committee of the Communist
hierarchy in Moscow.
However, because of continued unrest and resistance
to Communism, Khrushchev was sent back to the Ukraine as its political dictator in 1938. Once again
the people were subjected to a vast purge. So
violently did they react to this new barbarity that when World War II broke out and the Nazis moved in the Germans were welcomed by the Ukrainians as
liberators. Nikita Khrushchev never forgave them for
that. Before fleeing toward Moscow, he poured out his
vengeance against them. Official reports show that
when the Nazis arrived, they found numerous mass
graves. In one area alone there were over 90 mammoth burial plots containing approximately
10,000 bodies of "peasants, workers and priests,"
each with hands tied behind the back and a bullet in
the head.
After the Germans were driven out in 1944,
Khrushchev once more returned to the Ukraine grimly
determined to annihilate "all collaborationists." Whole
segments of the population were deported, a
complete liquidation of the principal Christian
churches was launched, "people's leaders" were
arrested and executed, and the NKVD was turned
loose on the populace with a terrible ferocity intended
to terrorize the people and eliminate all resistance to
the Communist reoccupation. "Hangman of the Ukraine" became the people's title for Nikita
By 1949 Khrushchev had so completely
demonstrated his total dedication to Stalin that he was returned to Moscow as the secretary of the
powerful Central Committee. He was then given the
assignment of trying to make the sluggish centralized
farms produce more food. Khrushchev used terror
tactics to get more work and more produce, but he
failed. Khrushchev could raise only enough food to
keep the people at a bare-subsistence level. This was
the status of Khrushchev at the time of Stalin's death.
How Khrushchev Seized Power
When Stalin died March 5, 1953, he left a bristling
nest of problems for his quarreling Communist
comrades. Each Red leader carefully eyed his
competitors, weighing the possibility of seizing
power. Khrushchev immediately went to work maneuvering for a position of strategic strength. Compared to the other Red leaders, Khrushchev was
described both inside and outside of Russia as "low man on the totem pole."
The first in terms of strength was Malenkov, secretary
of Stalin, who had charge of all secret Communist
files. It was said he had collected so much damning
evidence on the others that they tried to curry his favor
by pushing him forward as the temporary head of the
The second in line was Beria, hated leader of the
secret police and an administrator of the nuclear
development program, all of which gave him a hard
core force of 2,000,000 armed men.
The third in line was Molotov, intimate Bolshevik
associate of Stalin himself and the most shrewd,
deceptive diplomat Soviet Russia had ever produced.
The fourth in line was Bulganin, official representative
of the Communist Party in the Red Army and
therefore the Army's principal politician.
The fifth in line was Khrushchev, head of the State
collectivized farms.
Many people did not take Khrushchev seriously. They
thought of him merely as the paunchy, bullet-headed
hatchet man of Stalin. But Khrushchev took himself
seriously. Doggedly and desperately he pushed for
every possible personal advantage. His method was
to use an old Communist trick which is the very
opposite of "divide and conquer." His technique was
to "unite and conquer."
First he united with Premier Malenkov. He convinced
Malenkov that Beria was his greatest threat, his
greatest enemy. In December, 1954, Beria and his
associates were arrested and shot.
Now Khrushchev united with Bulganin to get rid of
Malenkov. Khrushchev told the bearded political army
leader that he (Bulganin) should be premier instead of
Malenkov. Bulganin heartily agreed. Immediately
there was a shift of power behind the scenes which
permitted Bulganin to replace Malenkov by the spring
of 1955.
Molotov was the next to fall. He had no machine in
back of him but had depended upon his prestige as
Stalin's partner. Suddenly he found himself exiled to
the Mongolian border.
Now the partnership of Bulganin and Khrushchev
began running the entire Communist complex. But
Khrushchev was not through. His next step was to
persuade Bulganin to force Marshal Zhukov of World
War II fame into retirement and to demote other key
officials in the government. Some of these officials were the very ones who had originally sponsored
Khrushchev's promotions in previous years. Suddenly
they found themselves politically emasculated. By
destroying his friends as well as his enemies,
Khrushchev felt he was preventing them from
regrouping and ousting him the way he was ousting
Finally Khrushchev was prepared for the big step -- to
oust Bulganin. By forcing Bulganin to get rid of
Marshal Zhukov, Khrushchev created a rift between
Bulganin and his main source of support, the Red
Army. This allowed Khrushchev to move into the
breach and fill powerful key positions with his own
followers. By 1956 Bulganin found himself the captive
puppet of Khrushchev. For two more years
Khrushchev ran the government through Bulganin, but
there was no question whatever as to who was in line
for Stalin's throne.
Such was Nikita Khrushchev's slippery and
dangerous ascent to the summit.
But all of these battles in the Kremlin and the resulting
shift of power had not solved the terrifying economic
problems which continued to plague Soviet socialism. Nowhere -- in China, Russia or the satellites -- was Communism proving successful. Uprisings had been
occurring for over three years in the Communistcontrolled countries. Heavy Soviet armament had to
be maintained in all of them.
Just as Khrushchev was consolidating his power in
1956, a major satellite cut loose and struck for
The Hungarian Revolution -- 1956
While bargaining for American lend-lease during
World War II, Stalin had promised that any nation
coming under the domination of the Red Army during
the war would be allowed free elections and selfdetermination after the war. Hungary was the first
nation to demand self-government and the overthrow
of the Communist regime.
Perhaps no better historical example exists to
illustrate the extreme treachery to which Khrushchev would extend himself than the Hungarian Revolution.
On the 23rd of October, 1956, a massive but peaceful
demonstration took place in Budapest with thousands
of people participating. The people said they wanted
to end Soviet colonial rule and set up a democratic
government with free elections. When the crowds
refused to disband, the Russian secret police were
ordered to fire on them. Thus the revolution began.
The first major action of the revolution was toppling
down the huge statue of Stalin, the symbol of Soviet
domination. The freedom fighters then hoisted the Hungarian flag on the stump. Soviet occupation
troops were immediately ordered in to smash the
revolution, but they were resisted by Communist
trained Hungarian troops who defected and joined the
Freedom Fighters. Many of the Soviet occupation
troops also defected. As a result, the remaining
Soviet troops were beaten in five days. Then General
Bela Kiraly describes what happened:
"To avoid annihilation of the Soviet units, Khrushchev
himself carried out one of his most sinister actions. He sent to Budapest his first deputy, Mikoyan; and he
sent Mr. Suslov from the party leadership. These two
Soviet men sat down with the revolutionary
government. They found out they were defeated. After
talking with Khrushchev by means of the telephone --
and by the approval of Khrushchev they concluded an
armistice.... Diplomatic actions were further
developed.... It was positively declared that the aim of
further diplomatic negotiations (would be) how to withdraw the Soviet troops from Hungary and how to
allow Hungary to regain her national independence."2
The Soviet representatives proposed that final details
be drawn up at the Soviet headquarters in Tokol, a
village south of Budapest. The entire Hungarian
delegation was therefore invited to come and discuss
the precise date when Soviet troops would leave Hungary. In response to this invitation, the elated and
victorious Hungarians went to the Soviet
headquarters. To their amazement they were
suddenly surrounded, seized and imprisoned.
Simultaneously a new all-out attack was ordered by
Khrushchev against the whole Hungarian population.
The new Soviet attack was in the form of a massive
invasion, It involved 5,000 tanks and a quarter of a million soldiers. They poured in from Czechoslovakia, Russia and Rumania. On Sunday, November 4, 1956,
the radio station in Budapest pleaded:
"People of the world, listen to our call! Help us....
Please do not forget that this wild attack of
Bolshevism will not stop. You may be the next victim.
Save us! SOS! SOS!"3
A little later the voice said:
"People of the civilized world, in the name of liberty
and solidarity, we are asking you to help. Our ship is
sinking. The light vanishes. The shadows grow darker
from hour to hour. Listen to our cry.... God be with you
-- and with us."
That was all. The station went off the air.
As the student of history contemplates those tragic
days, he cannot help but wonder: Where was the
conscience of the Free West? Where was the U.N.?
Where were the forces of NATO? What had
happened to the whole fabric of gilded promises of
the U.N. made at San Francisco in 1945:
"... to save succeeding generations from the scourge
of war.
"... to reaffirm faith in fundamental rights, in the dignity
and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.
"... to establish ... respect for the obligations arising
from treaties.
"... to ensure that armed force shall not be used."4
As it turned out, the massacre of tens of thousands of
Hungarians finally smothered into oblivion the heroic Hungarian fight for freedom. Prime Minister Imre Nagy was executed. Most of the other leaders of the
revolution were deported to Russia and never heard
of again. In the U.N. Security Council America's
Ambassador Lodge introduced a resolution
proposing that Russia be censured for this atrocious
Hungarian attack. Russia vetoed it!
This amazing and treacherous series of events was
personally supervised by Nikita Khrushchev. Without
any serious challenge whatever, he was allowed to
carry them out in direct violation of the Yalta
agreement, the Warsaw Pact and the first two articles
of the U.N. Charter. It was the greatest opportunity the Western Bloc had ever had to show whether or not the
mighty and strong had the courage to expel Russia
and then put the high-sounding phrases of the U.N. to work.
Instead, the U.N. appointed a committee to gather the
facts, prepare a report, and then submit it to the General Assembly.
This gave pro-Soviet forces an additional chance to
pull sensitive strings in the U.N. and further obscure
the vicious conquest of Hungary.
The U.N. Investigation of the
Hungarian Revolution
The average American has no conception of the deep
Penetration of the Communist conspiracy inside the United Nations.
A Danish diplomat, Povl Bang-Jensen, said he began
feeling strong Communist pressures soon after he
started serving as the deputy secretary of the U.N.
committee which was investigating the Russian attack
on Hungary.5 He claimed pro-Soviet influence came
sweeping down upon him from the Secretary
General's office and even from many of the committee members.
Bang-Jensen did not know where to turn for help;
Finally he started writing protests both to the
committee and the Secretary General. He pointed out
errors in the report which would allow the Russians to
discredit it. He said the Committee Chairman had
refused to correct these errors. He stated that
important facts were being eliminated which
established the official responsibility of the Russian
government for what had happened. He also noted
that the committee was going soft in its treatment of
Janos Kadar who headed up the new Communist
puppet government in Hungary.
But most of all, Povl Bang-Jensen was outraged when
the Secretary General demanded that he reveal the
secret list of Hungarian witnesses. He had been
authorized in writing to tell the witnesses that their
names would never be disclosed since this would
bring cruel and immediate reprisal on their families in Hungary. Bang-Jensen stood by this commitment. He
declared that turning over the names to the U.N.
Secretariat would permit possible leaks to the Russians. The word was already getting around the U.N. that Russian agents were offering extravagant
bribes to anyone who would get them the list.
Suddenly Bang-Jensen found the U.N. Secretariat
and the investigating committee attacking him
personally. Instead of dealing with the issues, high
U.N. officials began describing Povl Bang-Jensen as
"mentally ill."
Three leading American employees in the U.N.
participated in the attack on Bang-Jensen. They were
Andrew Wellington Cordier, a former associate of
Alger Hiss, who had become No. 2 man in the U.N.;
Ernest A. Gross who had tried to get the United
States to allow recognition of Red China; and Dr. Ralph Bunche, U.N. Under-Secretary, who was one of
the first to put the "mentally ill" label on Bang-Jensen
in an official memorandum.
Gradually Povl Bang-Jensen felt himself going down
under the avalanche of opposition. When the U.N.
officials could not force him to disclose the secret list
of Hungarian witnesses, he was ordered to burn them
in the presence of a U.N. representative. This he did.
Then they fired him. Povl Bang-Jensen was
discharged by Dag Hammarskjold on December 4,
1957. Nevertheless the U.N. pressure against BangJensen as a mentally-ill person continued. Derogatory
reports from the U.N. prevented him from securing
several highly important positions.
For some time Bang-Jensen had also feared the
possibility of physical harm. He had been a Danish
underground fighter against the Nazis and
Communists in World War II and was familiar with the
technique of doing away with an enemy by making it
look like a suicide. Therefore he wrote the following
note to his wife on November 30, 1957:
"Under no circumstances whatsoever would I ever
commit suicide. This would be contrary to my whole
nature and to my religious convictions. If any note was
found to the opposite effect in my handwriting, it would
be a fake."
It was Thanksgiving Day, 1959, that the body of Povl
Bang-Jensen was found in a secluded area two miles
from his home with a bullet hole in his head. A pistol
and scribbled note were by his side.
He had left home 72 hours earlier to catch a bus. The
coroner found he had been dead only a few hours. What had happened during that tragic interval of two
days or more while Bang-Jensen was still alive?
Professional investigators suspected murder. If so, it was carefully executed to look like suicide. And
suicide was the final, official verdict. Many remained
But by this time the U.N. investigation of the Hungarian Revolution had long since been
completed. The expurgated, distorted and watered
down report had been turned over to the U.N. and
officially accepted by the General Assembly.
Inside Khrushchev's Russia
Communism has only one fragile excuse for all the
unparalleled brutality, cruelty and crimes against
humanity which it commits. This is the Marx-EngelsLenin promise that it is the historical shortcut to a
better life for all mankind. But even Communists are
men with minds that seek tangible evidence for the
faith they live by. The most bitter reality in the Communist hierarchy is the fact that after 40 years of
all-out effort, numerous five-year plans, the purging,
executing, torturing and liquidation of millions of
human beings, the Communist Motherland has still
produced little more than a dull and monotonous
A five-year analysis of Russian economics revealed
the humiliating fact that less economic progress had
been made under 40 years of Communism than
under the last 40 years of the Tsars!6
Although stealing technical knowledge from the West
and kidnaping the scientists of vanquished foes has made it possible for the Communist leaders to make
several spectacular crash exhibitions in the technical
field, nevertheless the plain irrefutable fact remains
that Russia just cannot compete with capitalism in massive production. This continues to be a nest of
cockleburs in the craw of Communist leadership.
After 1955, when Americans were finally allowed to
visit the Soviet Union, it was observed that the whole
socialist production system sloppily squandered vast
quantities of manpower. Often, for each man working,
another stood idly looking on. Capitalistic work
incentives had been introduced to create work motivation, but even so, monolithic socialized
planning continued to hold back production schedules
and production speed.
American tourists with eyes alert to such problems
observed that Khrushchev was resorting to child labor
to try to make up the difference. In fact, the Russian
government admitted it was recruiting students from
the schools to work for the farms and factories.
Khrushchev announced his plan to limit most Russian
youth to seven or eight years of schooling and said much of this would be at night. Only very select
students would be allowed to go to college.7
As for the collectivized farms, even with half of the
entire Russian population working on socialized
farms the USSR had not been able to do more than
feed the people at a bare-subsistence level. The fact
that the American system permits a mere 12% of the
people to produce more than Americans can either
eat or sell stuns the comprehension of Red farm
experts like Khrushchev. And he has made no secret
of his resentment. Every so often he lashes out at the
sluggish Russian farm program. These are direct
quotes from his 1955 speech denouncing Russian
"Lag in production."
"Intolerable mismanagement."
"State farms fail to fulfill their plan for an increase."
"Hay fields remain unharvested."
"No silo buildings are being erected."
"Unfortunate situation has arisen with regard to seed."
"For six years work has been in progress on the
design of a tractor ... and the tractor has not been
"Machinery is not being used on many collectivized
"There is considerable disorder on our state farms."
"Cases of damage (labor sabotage) to trucks and
"Undernourished cattle delivered to the State."
"Serious shortcomings in pig breeding."
"Production of milk decreased 10 percent."
"Cows bearing calves amount to only 34 percent."
"Weight of fattened pigs and wool clippings
"Americans succeeded in achieving a high level of
stock breeding."
"In the United States this crop (corn) gives the highest
harvest yield."8
This was the reason Khrushchev abandoned the last
Five-Year-Plan and substituted a Seven-Year-Plan.
The latest plan is supposed to equal U.S. production
by 1965, but in 1961 Khrushchev roared out his anger
at the Russian farmers. There had been a continuous
slump in farm production for five years! 9
The Hazardous Life of a Communist
By 1958 Nikita Khrushchev had officially declared
himself head of the Communist Party and the
supreme dictator of all Russia. Nevertheless he had
some cold, hard facts to face.
By that time the Red timetable of conquest was at a
virtual standstill; the Iron Curtain was surrounded by
NATO and SEATO defense bases with atomic warheads zeroed in to discourage Communist
Mao and Chou, the Red Chinese leaders, were
becoming increasingly defiant, critical and
It was taking more than six million soldiers and secret
police to maintain the "state of siege" behind the Iron Curtain so as to give the appearance of "domestic
Russia had worn out her good offices in the U.N. and was beginning to feel the united pressure of the Western Bloc.
There was continued unrest in the satellites and large Red Army garrisons had to be stationed in each of
them since the local armies were likely to join any
uprising just as they did in Hungary.
There was also serious unrest in the Red Army where
deep resentment against Khrushchev's ruthless
political decapitation of Marshal Zhukov still existed.
Khrushchev had been only partially successful in
opening up the world market so that the Sino-Soviet
Bloc could buy the things which its collectivized
economy could not produce. He also faced the
economy could not produce. He also faced the
unpleasant fact that the Red economy was not in a
position to pay for foreign trade because it was
continually operating on the brink of bankruptcy.
Finally, and most important of all, Khrushchev lived
under the constant threat of possible "regrouping" by
disgruntled Red leaders to oust him from power the
same way he had ousted Malenkov and Bulganin.
Khrushchev felt a desperate need to boost his
personal political status. He determined to achieve
this by forcing the United States to honor him with an
invitation to visit America.
Khrushchev's Scheme to Force the
U.S. to Invite Him to America
Ever since 1955 Khrushchev had tried to get the United States to invite him to America, but failed.
Finally he decided to accomplish it by creating a
crisis over Berlin. In 1958 he issued an ultimatum that
America and her allies must get out of West Berlin by
a certain date or he would turn the Communist East
Germans loose on them.
This demand was a flagrant violation of all existing
treaties. When President Eisenhower announced that
any efforts to force us out of Berlin would be met with military resistance, Khrushchev immediately said he
didn't really want war and that he thought the whole
thing could be worked out amicably if he just came to
the United States and talked it over with the
President. He also mentioned on several occasions
that President Eisenhower would be welcome to visit
At first President Eisenhower demurred. Bringing the Communist dictator to the United States was
precisely what Secretary Dulles had warned against
right up to the time of his death. However, President
Eisenhower felt that such a visit might impress
Khrushchev with the power of the United States and
deter him from hasty military action. Furthermore, the
President felt much good might arise from a visit to Russia by the President of the United States. It would
be in furtherance of his own program of "people to
people" relations. Therefore an official invitation was
extended to the Communist dictator -- making him the
first Russian ruler ever to visit the United States.
Was Khrushchev's Visit a Mistake?
American strategists on Communist problems
immediately warned that a serious tactical error was
being made. Several of them testified before Congressional Committees. Eugene Lyons, a senior
editor of The Readers Digest, a biographer of
Khrushchev and a former press correspondent in Russia, called the invitation to Khrushchev "a terrific
victory for Communism." Then he continued:
"It amounts to a body blow to the morale of the
resistance in the Communist world. It's a betrayal of
the hopes of the enemies of Communism within that world, and their numbers can be counted by the
hundred million.
"The announcement of the invitation was a day of
gloom and despair for nearly the whole population of
every satellite country and for tens of millions inside
Russia itself."10
When asked if Khrushchev's visit to the United States might cause him to slow down or abandon his plans
for world conquest, Mr. Lyons replied:
"It's a childish fairy tale. The Communists in high
places are perfectly well informed about our material
prosperity and political freedom. Khrushchev is not
coming here to confirm his knowledge of our
strengths, but to feel out our weaknesses. The notion
that he will be impressed by our wealth and liberty to
the point of curbing Communist ambitions is political
innocence carried to extremes....
"In the first place, the new Soviet boss, despite his
homespun exterior, is one of the bloodiest tyrants
extant. He has come to power over mountains of
corpses. Those of us who roll out red carpets for him
will soon have red faces."11
Even while Khrushchev was on his tour of the United
States, Americans felt the icy thrust of numerous
snarling threats which crept out between his
propaganda boasts, his quaint platitudes and his
offering to swear on the Bible. The press observed
that he was supersensitive and hot tempered about
questions on any of the following matters:
The ruthless and illegal suppression of the Hungarian
revolt after all of Khrushchev's recent preachments
about "self determination."
Questions about his role as the "Hangman of the Ukraine."
Questions about Soviet jamming of Voice of America
Questions about the continuous flight of thousands of
refugees from satellite states.
Aftermath of the Khrushchev Visit
The whole world-wide program of Communist
aggression was swiftly accelerated as a result of
Khrushchev's visit. The Communist Party in the United
States came boldly out into the open. It began a new
recruiting program. It openly attacked the House Committee on Un-American activities and marked the
FBI for early dismantling if it succeeded in destroying
the Congressional Committees. Convicted
Communists from the Hollywood cells moved back
into the cinema capital and boldly began writing,
producing and propagandizing through multi-million
dollar productions. The president of the Communist
Party announced the launching of a nationwide Communist youth movement.
The same thrust became apparent all over the world --
in Japan, Southeast Asia, India, Africa, Cuba, Central
and South America. Everywhere the Red tide ran
stronger. The dire prediction of strategists like John
Foster Dulles and Eugene Lyons had been literally
Nevertheless, the visit of the Russian Dictator to the United States also carried a certain penalty for
Khrushchev. This was the devastating effect which
could result from President Eisenhower's reciprocal
visit to Russia. Khrushchev was deeply impressed with the acclaim which Vice President Nixon received when he visited Russia and the satellites. He knew
that if President Eisenhower were granted the same
freedom of expression on radio, TV, in public meetings and in press interviews that Khrushchev had
enjoyed in the United States, the pro-Communist tide
could be reversed, Desperately, Khrushchev looked
around for some semblance of an excuse to cancel
the Eisenhower visit. Almost as though the Communists had planned it, a monumental excuse
dropped into Khrushchev's lap right out of the sky.
The U-2 Incident
On May 1, 1960, Francis G. Powers, piloting an
unarmed U-2 jet reconnaissance plane, were
captured 1200 miles inside Russia. The Communist
leaders triumphantly announced that they had shot
down the U-2 spy plane with a marvelous new rocket.
This story was discredited when the Russians
displayed Power's undamaged equipment and the U.S. monitors reported hearing the Russian pilots as
they followed the plane in a forced landing. Government officials revealed that the U-2 plane
came down because of a flameout.
In Washington the incident created consternation.
Since Americans were not accustomed to spying,
they hardly knew what to do when this plane was
caught spying. At first it was simply claimed that the U-2 was a weather plane which must have "drifted."
Finally, it was rather clumsily admitted that the plane was in fact flying on an espionage mission with the
highly important assignment of photographing
Russian missile bases.
Khrushchev professed outraged indignation, criticized
the "morals" of the American leaders for spying, and
denounced the U-2 incident as an act of aggression. He also immediately announced that he was
canceling President Eisenhower's visit to Russia. A
few days later he used the U-2 incident to scuttle the
Paris Summit Conference.
Meanwhile, in America, citizens were peppering
Washington with a multitude of questions:
Was this an isolated mission or one of many
espionage flights?
Was it in violation of international law?
What did such flights accomplish?
Why hadn't the Russians objected to such flights
Should the flights be continued or terminated?
Since Russia had now captured one of the U-2 planes
and all of its equipment, the U.S. Government felt
justified in telling the inside facts on this rather
ingenious American defense device which had been
operating over Russia and China for more than 4
years. The May 1 flight was one of more than 200 which had been mapping offensive war preparations
of the USSR.
It was revealed that the U-2's had been ordered aloft
in 1956 when the U.S. had first learned that the Communist leaders had officially adopted a mammoth "sneak attack" plan as part of their over-all
strategy. The planes had flying over Russia at an
altitude of between 12 and 14 miles -- far out of reach
of any jets or rockets which the Russians possessed.
Was this illegal? Since Russia had refused to
negotiate any international law on air space, these
flights were not illegal. Ernest K. Lindley summarized
the views of Secretary of State Christian Herter:
"The altitude above the earth to which a nation's
sovereignty extends has never been determined by
international agreement. The traditional rule is said to
be that a nation’s sovereignty extends as high as it
can exert effective control. By that rule, the U-2 flights were not illegal so long as the planes flew above the
reach of Soviet air defenses."12
Then how effective had the U-2's been? The Defense
Secretary told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
"From these flights, we got information on airfields,
aircraft, missile testing and training, special-weapon
storage, submarine production, atomic production
and aircraft deployment."13
How was this achieved? The Air Force revealed that
it was done with high precision photographic
equipment which performed miracles. This equipment
could photograph a golf ball from 9 miles up. In fact a
published photograph of a golf course taken from that
altitude showed the greens, cars, club house and
players. The picture caption read: "Even golf balls are
clearly identifiable to photo-interpreters."14
But Russia and China cover such vast territories. How
could precision photography be effective over so wide a terrain? The Air Force answered this question
by revealing that this photographic equipment not only
had high precision qualities but was also extremely
comprehensive. Officials pointed out those 2 jets
carrying these special cameras could photograph one
third of the United States in 4 hours!
During Khrushchev's verbal blast against the U-2
flights, he let it slip that he had known about these
planes for over three years. Some people wondered why he had not protested long before. Experts
pointed out that if Khrushchev had complained, it would have exploded his propaganda boasts about
the invincible strength of Soviets defenses. He had
been claiming that Soviet radar, jets and rockets
could prevent any nation from successfully attacking
U-2 photographs had revealed that Russian defenses were wide open to massive retaliatory attack. It was
for this reason that Khrushchev had waited until he
finally got hold of a U-2 plane so that he could claim
the Russians had shot it down. The Communists even
succeeded in getting Francis Powers to testify at his Moscow trial that he had been shot down at 68,000
feet. But when his father came from America to visit
him, the U-2 pilot said he was not shot down. This
seemed to confirm Washington military statements
that the Russians had neither jets nor rockets that
could reach 68,000 feet.
The question of future U-2 flights was finally settled when President Eisenhower agreed that there would
be no more. He made it clear that this was not
because the flights were illegal or unjustified but
simply that the United States would soon have other means of staying informed about Russian bases. The U.S. successfully launched its first Midas satellite into
orbit on May 23, 1960. This one carried a 3,000
pound payload of technical equipment designed to
detect a missile launching anywhere in the world.
A few months later the U.S. launched its Samos
satellite. The Samos was specifically designed to
photograph Russia and China from 300 miles out as
it made an orbital journey around the earth every 94
1/2 minutes. Of course, from 300 miles distance,
additional photo graphic miracles were necessary.
The Air Force revealed thai the cameras on the
Samos would photograph and identify, any object
larger than one square foot.
The RB-47 Incident
An American RB-47 reconnaissance plane
disappeared over the Berents Sea on July 1, 1960.
For several days Russia pretended to be helping in
the search for the missing plane and then bluntly
admitted that it had been shot down. All of the crew
was killed except two. The Russians said they were
holding the two survivors as prisoners.
The United States was shocked. President
Eisenhower sent Russia one of the most indignant
protests of his entire career as President. Russia
claimed that the plane was shot down because it had
violated Russian territory just like the U-2. The United
States Ambassador said this charge was an absolute
falsehood. He pointed out that the plane had been
under British electronic surveillance and that the United States was prepared to prove the RB-47 had
never been closer than thirty miles to the Soviet
On July 26, 1960, the United States demanded an
impartial investigation by the United Nations to fix
responsibility for this inexcusable and illegal attack which had resulted in the killing of four Americans and
the kidnaping of two others. The request was referred
to the Security Council. It was generally agreed that a U.N. investigation should be held. How else could the U.N. Charter be enforced unless investigations of
alleged violations were conducted? But there was no
investigation by the U.N. Russia vetoed it!
The Italian representative then moved that the
International Red Cross be allowed to interview the
two American survivors. Russia vetoed that, too.
Most Americans missed the ugly significance of this
entire U.N. fiasco. Once more Russia had violated the
first two articles of the U.N. charter and gotten away with it. There were no particular protests from the
press or the public. There was no sweeping demand
that Russia be expelled. There was no stirring
demand that the whole U.N. structure be completely
re-examined. Across the country, school children
continued to be told that the U.N. was the only hope
for peace and justice among men.
The Space Race
In October, 1957, Russia electrified the world with her
first Sputnik. Built on plans stolen from the United
States after World War II, Sputnik I, with a payload weighing 184 pounds, was successfully launched into
orbit October 4th.
Immediately the United States went into "panic
production" to catch up. However, U.S. missile
experts insisted on a broad range of experimental
effort rather than single-focus crash programs such as
the Russians seemed to be following. Long range, the
American approach soon began to pay off. Russia
continued to put up bigger payloads but America
started getting far better scientific data. Gradually the U.S. satellite and missile teams began forging ahead.
By April 1, 1960, the U.S. had the highly successful
Tiros I in orbit which circled the earth every 99 minutes at a height of 450 miles. This space vehicle
had solar batteries which operated earth-controlled
television cameras to transmit pictures of weather
formations. This was the most successful picturetaking vehicle ever put into space.
On August 11, 1960, the U.S. was the first to de-orbit
a satellite capsule from space. This one weighed 300
pounds. OnAugust 12 the U.S. put an inflated balloon
into space. It was as high as a 10-story building and was described as the "first radio mirror" for a huge
satellite communications network. 1960 also marked
the launching of America's first inter-continental
ballistic missiles from submerged submarines. This meant that never again could Russia plan a sneak
attack on the West because massive retaliation could
be launched from America's moving missile bases at
Officials revealed that future satellites would carry
infrared sensors capable of detecting atomic
explosions and ballistic missile launchings by the Communists. These also would be able to follow the
trail of missiles in flight. America's long-anticipated
Midas and Samos satellites ranged into orbit during
1960 and early 1961.
Payload size also gradually became important to the U.S. as it neared the time when a man would be put
into space. A 15-ton satellite was promised for about
1963. However, experts promised that there would be
an American in space even before that.
Prodded by the unknown proportions of the Russian
effort, American wealth and technology poured its
strength into the space race. The score by 1961
seemed significant:
Satellites United States Russia
Space launching to date 32 7
Still in earth orbit 16 1
In solar orbit 2 1
Still transmitting 9 0
Successful moon shots 0 1
Recovery from orbit 4 1
The March of Communism in Africa
The year 1960 saw a clear manifestation that the Communist time table of conquest for Africa was right
on schedule. In 1953, the Communist leaders had
promised themselves that during the 1960's "a wave
of revolution will sweep over the whole continent of
Africa and the imperialists and colonizationists will be
quickly driven into the sea."15 They also made it clear
that the agitating and provoking of the "wave of
revolution" was the Communist program for the
capture of Africa.
However, by 1960, the European nations with
colonies in Africa were already busily trying to
prepare the people for independence and selfgovernment by peaceful means. From a Communist
standpoint this would have been a defeat. Red
leaders knew that any well-ordered government of
natives would undoubtedly resist Russian-Chinese
domination. It was therefore decided to urge the
natives to demand freedom immediately, before they
had actually been prepared for self-government. The Communists figured that in the resulting chaos, they
could probably take over. This is exactly what began
to take place.
The Tragedy in the Congo
The 1960 chain of events in the Belgian Congo
illustrated the devastating effect of turning selfgovernment over to primitive people prematurely. The
tragedy was compounded by the fact that the natives
had already been promised independence by 1964. Consequently, their uprising was not so much for
independence as for "freedom now."
To see the big picture it is necessary to realize that
75 years before when the Belgians first settled the Congo, it consisted of around 120 cannibalistic tribes
living on the lowest levels of human existence.
1960 the Belgians had created vast resources of wealth in the geographical heart of Africa. Most of it was concentrated in the province of Katanga which
produced 7.5 % of the world's copper, 60% of its
cobalt, most of the world's supply of radium and large
supplies of uranium and zinc.
As with the French and British, the Belgians had
hoped self-government could be developed among
the Africans by having the natives learn technical skills
and gradually assume responsibility for a stable
government. Business leaders and investors were
also willing to take the risk of a political transition
providing the new government was well managed. In
this rather cordial setting it was agreed that
Congolese independence could be granted by 1964.
The Belgians promised liberal loans to the newly
planned government and also promised to keep their
civil service staff working alongside the natives for
several years until they could safely take over.
Then Patrice Lumumba came storming back from the
conference chanting the current Communist theme:
"Independence now, now, now!" Lumumba, a former
postal clerk from Stanleyville, had been trained in the
special Communist schools in Prague and had a
brother living in Moscow. He had managed to
become the head of the most left-wing political
contingent in the Congo and, at the moment, enjoyed
a popular following. The Belgian officials began to
sense a threatening tone in his demands and saw the
possibility of an Algerian type of civil war. Therefore
the Government suddenly agreed to go ahead with
the independence of the Congo by June 30, 1960,
instead of waiting until 1964.
The Belgians thought this would satisfy Lumumba and
therefore the government was turned over to him on
the prescribed date. But no sooner had Lumumba
become Premier than he began a volcanic tirade
against "the whites" in general and "the Belgians" in
particular. The whole structure of "peaceful transition" went out the political window overnight.
The Congolese troops caught the spirit which
Lumumba had exhibited and promptly mutinied
against their white officers. Soon they became a
roaring mob. They swept through the white sections of
the principal cities beating, robbing and raping. As
violence spread, the whites fled the Congo in terror.
Some congregated temporarily in embassies, some
rushed to the airports. At Leopoldville, doctors
estimated that at least one out of every four women
escaping to the airport had been raped, some of
them a dozen times.
The evacuation of the whites left the Congo almost
devoid of government, schools, hospitals, or business
services. The native literacy rate was one of the
highest inAfrica, but in all of the Congo there was not
one native engineer or doctor and only a few college
To avoid total collapse and to protect the fleeing whites, the Belgian government brought in
paratroopers. Lumumba, however, treated them as
enemies and demanded that U.N. troops be flown in. No sooner had the U.N. forces begun to arrive than
Lumumba turned against them and invited
Khrushchev to send strong Communist forces to take
over the entire Congo. Soon Communist planes,
trucks, equipment, technicians and propagandists were arriving. Lumumba began collectivizing the land
and assembling an army to drive out both the U.N.
and the Belgian troops. He also began acting like a
fully disciplined Communist dictator by committing
genocide against his own people. In the Kasai
province, Lumumba's troops wiped out the Balubas
tribe while Lumumba's cousin, Surete Chief
Omonombe, personally directed the massacre of the
Bakwanga tribe. Rescuers were prevented from
bringing out women, children or the wounded.16
In spite of all this, the U.N. Secretariat continued to
support Lumumba as the legitimate head of the
But this was too much for the Congolese. They felt
they had been betrayed. On September 5th,
President Joseph Kasavubu told the world he was
ousting Lumumba as Premier. The very same day
Lumumba's own troops turned bitterly against him.
The Army Chief, Joseph Mobutu, clapped the
blustering Lumumba in jail and told his Communist
followers to get out of the Congo immediately.
All of this looked like a healthy improvement to most
people, but to the amazement of both Congolese and
outside observers, Dag Hammarskjold continued to
use his office as U.N. Secretary General to intercede
for Lumumba. Responsible Congolese like Premier Moise Tshombe of Katanga began asking whose
side Dag Hammarskjold was on!
In the beginning Dag Hammarskjolds' personal
representative in the Congo had been Dr. Ralph
Bunche, an American Negro serving as Under
Secretary of the U.N. But when Bunche failed in his
attempt to get the Congolese to accept the Communist-dominated regime of Patrice Lumumba,
he was replaced. The replacement turned out to be a U.N. official named Rajeshwar Dayal of India. Dayal
had functioned for only a short time when President
Kasavubu became equally alarmed with his policies.
By January, 1961, Kasavubu had written two letters to Dag Hammarskjold begging the U.N. to remove Dayal because of his strong "partiality."
During the latter part of 1960 and the early part of
1961, the violence of Lumumba's forces continued to
spread havoc in the central and northern sections of
the Congo. Press dispatches told of the raping of
nuns and other atrocities against whites. Then in early
February, 1961, it was suddenly announced that
Lumumba had escaped from Katanga and was
believed to be heading back toward the central
Congo to join his forces. Because Lumumba was the
principal voice for both Communism and violence the
Premier of the Katanga Province put a high price on
Lumumba's head. A few days later it was announced
that Lumumba had been caught and killed by
Congolese natives.
Immediately a cry of outrage came rumbling forth from
Moscow and a storm of protest emanated from the U.N. President Kasavubu and Moise Tshombe could
not understand why U.N. Secretary, Dag
Hammarskjold, insisted on being so sentimentally
concerned over Lumumba after the terrible blood bath
he had inflicted on the Congo.
The Congolese were also amazed when Hammarskjold tried to force President Kasavubu to
set up a Communist coalition government. This was
exactly the way each of the East European nations
had been trapped into becoming Soviet satellites.
Tshombe was further outraged when U.N. officials
tried to force him to terminate all relations with the
Belgians and discharge his Belgian advisors.
Tshombe accused Dag Hammarskjold of trying to
drive out the Belgians so a U.N. power grab could be
achieved. This actually took place in September,
1961. Dag Hammarskjold engineered an attack on
Katanga with U.N. troops which temporarily forced
Tshombe from the government. Tshombe was
replaced by the right hand man of Communist leader,
Antoine Gizenga.
However, Tshombe rallied the people under the battle
cry of "Liberty or Death!" and the resistance to the U.N. conquest began. It was then that Dag
Hammarskjold flew to Africa to negotiate a cease-fire
before the U.N.-sponsored regime was overthrown.
Enroute to Katanga, the U.N. plane crashed and Dag
Hammarskjold was killed. In Washington, D.C.,
Senator Thomas A. Dodd told the U.S. Senate that
Hammarskjold's campaign had been turning the whole Congo into a Communist camp. He charged
that the State Department had made a monumental
blunder in using American money to back the U.N.
conquest of the Congo.17
During all of this excitement many Americans thought
the U.N. was actually trying to protect the Congo from
a Communist take-over. They drew this conclusion
from the fact that Khrushchev had been violently
criticizing Hammarskjold's program in the Congo. Now it appeared that the fight between Khrushchev
and Hammarskjold was not on the issue of a Communist take-over since they had both been
pushing for one. Their dispute was to determine who would control the Communist regime once it was in
1. The Crimes of Khrushchev, House Committee on Un- American Activities, September 1959, Part 2, pp. 1-2.
2. The Crimes of Khrushchev, House Committee on Un- American Activities, 1959, Part 3, p. 12.
3."Howa Free Nation Was Killed,"U.S.News & World Report, November 16, 1956, p. 94.
4. Preamble of the U.N.Charter.
5. The Bang-Jensen case is treated fully in a recent book, Betrayal At the U.N., by DeWitt Copp and Marshall Peck, Devin-Adair, 1961.
6. "Russia's Growth Under Communism Less Rapid," by Dr. Warren Nutter, U.S. News & World Report, November 2, 1959,
p. 75.
7. "Russian Plan Cuts Down Schooling," U.S. News & World Report,October 3, 1959.
8. "Why Russia Is in Trouble," U.S. News & World Report,
February25, 1955, p. 58.
9. "Russ Admit 50 Percent Drop in Farm Output," Los Angeles Examiner, January11, 1961.
10. The Crimes of Khrushchev, House Committee on Un- American Activities, 1959, Part 1, p. 3.
11. The Crimes of Khrushchev, House Committee on Un- American Activities, 1959, Part 1, p. 3.
12."U-2 Making the Points,"Newsweek June 12, 1960, p. 38.
13. "Arms Chief Weighs U-2 Future," U.S. News & World Report, June 27, 1960, p. 45.
14. "The World's Big SpyGame," U.S. News & World Report, May23, 1960, p. 47.
15.Congressional Record, April 29, 1954, p. 5708.
16. Paris Report ofHilaire Du Berrier, September 1960, p. 1.
17. The four speeches of Senator Thomas A. Dodd have been
published in a pamphlet by the Government Printing Office. It
is called The Crisis in the Congo (1961).
Chapter Eleven
The Communist Conquest of Cuba
Now we turn our attention to Cuba.
During 1960, while the world was focusing attention
on events in the Congo, a far more serious
development was taking place just 90 miles from the
shores of the United States. For many months
shocked Americans had been watching Fidel Castro
completely destroy his pretended image as the
"George Washington of Cuba" and triumphantly
portray himself in his true role as a hard-core Communist conspirator.
Everything Lumumba would have done in the Congo, Castro actually accomplished in Cuba: drumhead
justice, mass executions, confiscation of industry,
collectivization of the land, suspension of civil rights,
suspension of democratic processes, alliances with
the Iron Curtain. All these became the trade marks of
the Castro regime.
To millions of Americans this was bitterly
disappointing. They had read Herbert Matthews' proCastro articles in the NewYork Times and watched
prominent TV personalities portray Castro as the
savior of Cuba.
As a matter of research, however, there was no real
excuse for missing Fidel Castro's Communist
connections, For years he had been clearly identified with their leaders, their insurrections, their ideology
and their plans. And even if all of this evidence had
been absent, the official records of the Havana and
Bogota police departments should have told the most
casual observer that Fidel Castro was certainly no
pillar of hope for Cuba. Even before he graduated
from law school his checkerboard career included
such crimes as assault with a deadly weapon, arson,
insurrection and murder,
Who Is Fidel Castro?
Fidel Castro is one of five illegitimate children born to
a servant woman on the sugar plantation of Fidel's
wealthy father, Angel Castro.1 Biographers point out
that his early upbringing was not particularly
conducive to promoting the best qualities in a human
When Fidel was sent to secondary school he turned
out to be a mediocre student with an aggressive,
ambitious and rebellious nature. He was not well liked
at the school and to overcome his lack of popularity
he decided to impress the students by mounting a
bicycle and riding it full tilt into a high stone wall. This
accident left him unconscious for days. Some
authorities have wondered if he really ever recovered.
At 16 he obtained a gun and tried to kill a teacher
because of an argument over poor grades. By the
time Castro was 19, he had determined to become a
lawyer. To achieve this, his father sent him to the University of Havana. Almost immediately, however,
he identified himself with the most radical element on
campus and joined a group of beatniks who prided
themselves in being unshaven and unclean. Castro is
still remembered at the University of Havana by his
nickname of "Bola de Churre" -- Ball of DirtyGrease.
Castro told Diaz Balart (who later became his
brother-in-law) that he intended to become
studentbody president and then use his prestige to
agitate the students into a revolutionary force which would ultimately make him the political leader of
Cuba. But his jealous ambition did not make him
studentbody president. Instead, it led him to engineer
his first attempt at murder in 1947.
The victim was Leonel Gomez, the popular
studentbody president of Havana High School #1. For
"political reasons" Castro shot him through the chest with intent to kill. Fortunately the boy recovered. Castro, however, expected him to die and fled from
the city to join a Communist-directed expedition which was training to invade the Dominican Republic and
overthrow Trujillo. Before the expedition was launched
Castro heard that Gomez had recovered and
therefore felt it was safe to return to the University.
Castro's Second Attempt at Murder
Is Successful
By 1948 Castro had gained considerable confidence
in his own political prospects and was determined
that nothing should stand in the way. He had made
himself the head of a University terrorist organization
and on February 22, 1948, he used machine guns to
kill the ex-President of the University Student
Federation and a friend named Carlos Pucho
Samper. Two others were wounded. Castro was
arrested for this murder but the investigation had not
been thorough and he was able to get released. It is
also suspected that the judge was influenced by the
fact that one of Castro's confederates was the
nephew of the Cuban President.
A short time after this he left for Bogota, Columbia. Castro's student activities had brought him to the
attention of Soviet agents who were looking for young
firebrands to lead out in the subversion of Latin
American countries. Castro was ordered to go to
Bogota and take Rafael del Pino with him. In view of
his recent brush with the law it seemed an excellent
time to be taking a trip.
Castro as a Soviet Agent in the
Bogota Riots
In April, 1948, the eyes of the world were watching
Bogota, Colombia, where the Ninth Inter-American Conference was to be held. It was under the direction
of U.S. Secretary of State, George C. Marshall. This
occasion was chosen by the Soviet strategists to
stage a Communist-directed insurrection. It was to
unseat the conservative government of Colombia and
break up the Inter-American Conference.
Alberto Nino, Security Chief of Colombia, published a
book in 1949 on the insurrection. He has much to say
about Fidel Castro. Nifio describes how Castro and
Rafael del Pino were put under surveillance the moment they arrived at the airport: "These two men
came as replacements for two Russian agents
stationed in Cuba, whose plans were known and who were expected by the Colombian police. Instead
these two came.... Before the 9th of April, a telegram
was taken from them announcing the arrival of one of
the Russians."2
Nino and his men found that the planned insurrection was not being led by the Communist Party of
Colombia but by a group of "international
Communists" who worked out of the Soviet legation in
Bogota. There were nine of these international
Communists who fronted for the Soviet apparatus.
Fidel Castro and Rafael del Pino were two of the
When the insurrection struck it was triggered by
having Communist agents kill Dr. Jorge Gaitan, the most popular political leader in Colombia. Communist
handbills, printed in advance, blamed the murder on
the Government and urged the people to avenge
themselves by sacking the city. Within an hour Bogota
was converted into a holocaust of violence and
flaming devastation.
Nino found that the Soviet apparatus had arranged to
have a crew move through the city ahead of the mob
smashing off locks and opening stores and warehouses. After the mob had looted the buildings,
another crew went through spraying gasoline on floors
and walls. The last stage was to have trained
arsonists methodically burn these structures which
ultimately gutted the center of the city.
When it was all over the "destruction of the civic
center was complete." The Palace of Justice which
contained most of the civil and criminal records was
demolished to its foundations. Colleges, churches,
stores and other public buildings were burned.
Altogether 136 major buildings were destroyed
representing a loss of more than $21,000,000. After
the battles between the police and the mobs had
subsided more than 1,000 corpses were left lying in
the streets.
Some of Castro's biographers have tried to gloss
over Castro's complicity in this terrible destruction but
the files of the Bogota police state that detectives
secured a "carnet, which the office of Detectives now
has in its possession, with a photograph of the two Cubans, identifying them as first-grade agents of the
Third Front of the USSR in South America."3
It was further discovered that Castro and del Pifio
were apparently the ones assigned to arrange the murder of Jorge Gaitan. Their activities became so
completely exposed that President Perez went on a
nationwide broadcast to denounce the two Cubans as
"Communist leaders in the insurrection."
When it became obvious that the insurrection had
failed, Castro and del Pino left quickly for Cuba.
Castro Commits His Third Murder
Castro had barely returned, however, when he
learned that Sgt. Fernandez Caral of the Havana
Police had been carefully investigating the machine
gun murders which occurred earlier in the year and
now had positive evidence that Castro was
responsible. Castro immediately rounded up his
associates and when they saw an opportunity, they
killed Caral on July 4, 1948.
A police net was thrown out over the city. That same
day Fidel Castro was arrested and charged with the murder. But now the police had a chance to see what
kind of influence Castro possessed. They soon
discovered that the witnesses to the murder were so
intimidated by fear of reprisal from Castro's terrorist
organization that none of them would testify. Once
again the authorities were forced to release Castro
and he promptly scurried away into hiding.
From this point on, Castro moved through the
seething revolutionary underground of Cuba as a
force to be reckoned with.
By 1948 the sensational disclosures of Whittaker Chambers, Elizabeth Bentley and a host of defected
American Communists had exposed Russia's world- wide conspiracy to Sovietize all humanity. As a result,
a strong wave of anti-Communist sentiment was
rising everywhere. Up and down the Western
hemisphere Communists were being instructed to run
for cover and do their work through "fronts."
In Cuba, Fidel Castro decided to ally himself with the Orthodox Party which was a reform movement led by
Eddie Chibas. Eddie Chibas soon detected
something wrong with Castro and warned his
associates that Castro was not only Communistic but
had propensities for violent revolution of the gangster
variety. This warning blocked Castro from gaining
further power in the leadership of the party but he still was allowed to remain a member.
The Batista Regime in Cuba
By 1952 it was time for another general election, and,
as usual, revolutionary activity was threatening on
every hand. Candidates were being physically
attacked and some blood had been spilled. In the CubanArmy it was beginning to get around that some
of the political factions were thinking of using the
Army to seize power and restore order General
Fulgencio Batista suddenly decided to seize Cuba's
political reigns and restore order himself.
In order to evaluate the Batista coup it is necessary to
appreciate that never for any appreciable time since Cuba won her independence has she enjoyed
genuine democracy or stable self-government. Her
political history has been a tragic composite of illegal
elections, assassinations, inefficiency in government,
graft, nepotism, intimidation and dictatorships.
Although popular elections have been held, these
have nearly always been so corruptly and fraudulently
conducted that it was never certain whether the
"elected" officials were actually the people's choice. Defeated candidates often became the leaders of
revolutionary parties seeking to seize control. This would lead to dictatorial reprisal by the party in power,
and thus the political pendulum would swing between
the "ins" and the "outs" with popular uprisings and military suppression following each other in quick
As for as General Batista was concerned, 1952 was
not the first time he had used the Army to seize power
and establish order in Cuba. Back in 1933-34 he had
quelled civil strife long enough to have a new
president put in office; but when the people were not
satisfied with this or any other candidate for
president, he finally had himself elected in 1940. A
new constitution was adopted in 1940, but when the
general election was held in 1944, Batista's
candidate was defeated.
The Batista regime was followed by two extremely
corrupt, graft-ridden administrations which once more
destroyed confidence in the democratic processes.
By 1952 these politicians were also destroying the
stability of Cuba's economy. Batista was a candidate
for president himself but felt the elections would be a
fraud and civil war would result; therefore he
considered the circumstances sufficiently critical to
justify his taking over again and re-establishing a
temporary military government.
There was a cry of outrage both in the United States
and Cuba as Batista suspended the elections and
dissolved the congress. Nevertheless, he forged
ahead with a four-pronged program:
1 -- stabilizing Cuba's economy through diversified
agriculture and accelerated industrial development;
2 -- strengthening economic and political ties with the United States;
3 -- resisting Communism, and
4 -- raising the Cuban standard of living.
He also promised the U.S. Ambassador that free
elections would be held no later than 1958.
By 1957 the International Monetary Fund ranked
Cuba fourth among the 20 Latin American Republics
in per capita income. Although it was only one sixth as
high as the United States, it was 90% as high as Italy,
far higher than Japan, and six times higher than India.
The U.S. Department of Commerce reported: "The Cuban national income has reached levels which give
the Cuban people one of the highest standards of
living in Latin America.4
Batista's biographers agree that the General was not
the usual Latin American "army strong man," but was
actually very pro-labor and tried to persuade the
people that he wanted to carry out policies which would be popular rather than dictatorial. It soon
became apparent that Batista's policies were making
a highly profitable tourist mecca out of Cuba and
attracting vast quantities of American capital for
industrial development.
It also became apparent that Cuba was gradually
changing from a strait-jacket, sugar-cane culture to a
better balanced industrial-agriculture-tourist economy. Wages went up from 10 to 30% and many Cuban workers were covered with health, accident and medical insurance for the first time, between 1950
and 1958 the overall national income jumped 22%.
This is after deducting 10% for rising living costs.
This, then, was the promising development of Cuba which was taking place at the time Batista was
Politically, Batista's administration was typical of
Cuba's past. The Batista regime indulged itself in
certain quantities of graft; when there were armed
insurrections, Batista met violence with violence; when there were minority uprisings he suspended civil
rights and established full military control. Nevertheless he insisted that once conditions were
stabilized, he would submit himself to the people in a
popular election and would be willing to stand by the
results just as he had done in 1944. His opponents,
particularly Fidel Castro, jeered at such promises and
accused Batista of being opposed to constitutional
government. The record shows that several times when Batista tried to slacken the reigns of control
there were immediate outbursts of violence and he would therefore tighten them again.
But it was during the Castro Revolution that Batista's
political sincerity was actually demonstrated. He
announced that in accordance with his previous
commitment there would be a general election June
1, 1958. He invited Castro to restore peace so that
the will of the people could be determined.
Castro responded with a bloodthirsty manifesto in which be declared that as of April 5, 1958, any person who remained in an office of trust in the executive
branch of the government would be "considered guilty
of treason." He said candidates for the elections must withdraw immediately or suffer "ten years
imprisonment to the death sentence." He authorized
his revolutionary militia in the towns and cities to
shoot down candidates summarily.
Responsible Cubans such as Dr. Marquez Sterling made contact with Castro in his mountain retreat and
pleaded with the revolutionary leader to stop the
bloodshed and allow the elections. Castro arrogantly
turned him down. There would be no elections.
During the emotional white heat of the revolution many
Americans missed the highly significant overtures which Batista was making. As it turned out, these might have made the difference in saving Cuba from
the Communist conquest which Castro was planning.
Earlier, U.S. Ambassador Arthur Gardner had been
removed because he urged support of Batista until
Cuba's Problems could be settled at the polls. He was replaced by Ambassador Earl Smith who soon
received a horrified State Department stare when he
tried to put over the point that Castro was obviously
leading Cuba and the United States into a Soviet-built
Communist trap.
These shocked State Department "experts" reflected
their complete disdain for their Ambassador's advice
by deliberately engineering a tight arms embargo
against Batista. Then they went further. To completely
assure Batista's defeat they promoted an agreement
among the Central and SouthAmerican republics that
they would not sell arms to Batista either. The results were inevitable.
In desperation, Batista tried to buy 15 unarmed
training planes from the United States. It was finally
agreed that this would be satisfactory. Batista paid for
them in advance. Then Castro ordered Raul to launch
a project specifically designed to intimidate and
humiliate the United States. Raul kidnapped 30 U.S. Marines and sailors, 17 American civilians and 3
Canadians. Threats against the lives of these
hostages were used to force the United States to
cancel the shipment of training planes to Batista. The
experts in the State Department meekly capitulated!
Some American citizens were bold enough to
suggest that if Teddy Roosevelt had been alive he would have taken the U.S. Marine Corps and landed
in the middle of Castro's mountain retreat with such
an earthshaking velocity that the Cuban tyrant would
have gladly released the Americans -- and without any
The Castro Coup D’état
When Batista first took over in 1952, Fidel Castro had
immediately projected himself into the front lines of
opposition. As indicated previously, Castro had been working behind the facade of the Orthodox Party, but
after the Batista Coup he insisted that this
organization include the Communist Party and set up
a "popular front" against Batista. The Orthodox Party
leaders refused to do this. Castro promptly bolted the
party and said he would form his own movement.
It was only a short time after this -- July 26, 1953 --
that he made his disastrous attack on the Army
barracks at Santiago. This turned into a real tragedy
for the men in the barracks hospital (who were cut to
pieces by Castro's raiders) and also for Castro's men. They were met with overwhelming odds and
captured or killed. Survivors were subjected to torture
and eventual death in retaliation for their attack on the
wards in the hospital. Thus the "26th of July
Movement" was born.
Castro had managed to assign himself to a less
dangerous post in the 26th of July attack and when he
saw the assault was failing he fled, shouting, "Every man for himself!" His brother Raul also escaped.
Later both of the Castro brothers were captured and
sentenced to prison. Fidel was sentenced to 15 years
and Raul to 13. However, both of them served only 22 months because after Batista had put down the
attempted insurrection he commuted their sentences.
For this gesture of political generosity by Batista, the Castro brothers displayed only contempt. During July,
1955, they left Cuba declaring that they would
organize an invasion force and soon return to pull
down Batista and "liberate" Cuba.
The headquarters for this invasion movement was
established near Mexico City. All kinds of people
flocked there to support Castro's so-called liberation
of Cuba. Some were political enemies of Batista,
some were opportunists, and many were sincere
liberals. But just as with Lumumba in Africa, sinister
hard-core Communist personalities immediately moved in close to provide the "guiding hand."
Castro's chief of staff turned out to be Dr. Ernesto
"Che" Guevara, an Argentinian Communist assigned
to work with Castro by the Soviet apparatus called
"Asistencia Tecnica." Raul Castro had received
considerable training during a recent trip to Prague, Moscow and Red China. He was therefore made
commander of Castro's army. Other trained
Communists moved deftly into every phase of the
But in spite of all the training, intrigue and planning,
the famous "Invasion of Cuba" by Castro's forces
turned out to be a real fiasco. Castro's total strength was a mere handful of only 82 men who clambored
aboard a leaky yacht on November 19, 1956 and set
out to sea. The Captain of the yacht was Hipolito Castillo, well known strategist of the Soviet
organization for the subversion of Latin America. The
sluggish yacht was slow in reaching Cuba and when
the men waded ashore to make their heroic invasion
they were cut to pieces with gun-fire. Most of them
were captured or killed.
Castro managed to escape into the hills and
eventually work his way up into the 8,000 foot heights
of the Sierra Maestra. He arrived there with only a
handful of his original force. "Che" Guevara took over
and began using propaganda and tactical strategy to
dominate the immediate area and gradually rally
others to the cause -- especially young Cubans "full of
life, ideals and faith." Thus the strange forces of
revolutionary fire began to be built and soon civil war was reaching out across Cuba.
Two major factors led to the final success of Castro's
revolution. One was centered in the Soviet Union and
the other was centered in the United States.
Raul Castro who had previously been behind the Iron Curtain made several trips to Russia and
Czechoslovakia to negotiate for arms and finances.
The arms arrived by submarine, the money came
through by couriers. During the last months of the
revolution, observers were amazed at the quantities
of Czech and Russian equipment being used by the Castro forces. They were equally surprised at the vast
supplies of money which Castro had available -- money for wages, food, equipment, liquor, bribery and
Batista, on the other hand, suddenly found himself at
the other end of the horn. Because of his pro-U.S.
policies he had assumed that when the struggle for Cuba became critical he would be able to rely on the United States to sell him arms and supplies. To his
amazement he discovered that his request for
permission to buy arms in the U.S. fell on deaf ears. What he had not realized was that Herbert Matthews,
Edward Murrow, Ed Sullivan, Ruby Phillips, Jules Dubois and a multitude of other writers and opinion makers had been eulogizing Castro and castigating
Batista. In Congress, Senator Wayne Morse, Representative Charles O. Porter and Representative
Adam Clayton Powell had thrown their combined weight behind the Castro cause. All this "Robin Hood"
propaganda definitely had its effect.
At the same time Assistant Secretary of State Roy
Rubottom and Caribbean Director William Wieland --
the two persons who were supposed to know what
was going on -- blandly assured all inquirers that Fidel
Castro was the hope of Cuba and had no Communist
taint whatever. As late as June, 1959 (and that was
extremely late), Congressman Porter was assuring
his colleagues: "No one in the State Department
believes Castro is a Communist, or a Communist
sympathizer, nor does any other responsible person
who wants get his facts straight."5
Of course, as time marched on toward Cuba's
inexorable doom, the course of history embarrassed
the Congressman and also the State Department. In
the closing months of the conflict American policies
followed blind alleys which authorities have since
attributed to either "stupidity, incompetence, or worse."
The Communist Take-Over
It was January 1, 1959, that Fidel Castro became the
political steward of a dazed, war-weary Cuba. Batista
had fled. All opposition was crushed. In many circles
of American liberals and confused newspaper
readers there was a great huzza as though liberty and
constitutional government had come to Cuba at last.
But many students of international problems saw
ominous signs that the suffering and blood-letting for Cuba had barely begun. The first warnings were
exultant boasts from the Communist press that "they"
had won. In Moscow, Pravda pointed out that from the
very beginning of the Castro movement "our party
considered it its first duty to aid the rebels, giving
them the correct orientation and the support the
popular masses. The party headed the battles for land
and thereby increased its authority among peasantry. Our party ... appealed to the popular masses Fidel
Castro in every way...."6
The Communist Party of Cuba also came out in the
open to boast that they had provided an important
part of the revolutionary action "to overthrow the
bloody tyranny of Batista which served as the
instrument of imperialistic interests and was
supported by imperialism."7
If General Batista read this statement he may have wondered where this "imperialistic" support was
supposed to have come from. He knew that if the Communists were accusing him of enjoying U.S.
support they were really confused.
As soon as Castro took over he used his
revolutionary courts of mob justice to send over 600
persons to the firing squads. American liberals
described the punishment as "harsh, but deserved."
Then he reached out and began a "reform" movement
of typical Communist dimensions:
Confiscation of land and settling Cuban workers on what turned out to be large, Soviet-type collectivized
Confiscation of more than a billion dollars worth of
American industry which Castro had neither the
technicians nor finances to operate.
Breaking up of Cuban family life and placing mediumaged children in special farm communes so "the
children will be under the influence of teachers and not
their families."
Reorganization of the schools to serve as
propaganda transmission belts to dispense Communist doctrine and the "Hate Yankee" line.
Suspension of civil liberties and other constitutional
Elimination of free elections.
Capture of all press, TV and radio for government
propaganda purposes.
Termination of all cultural, political and economic ties with the United States.
Alliances with Russia.
Recognition of Red China.
Trade with the Communist bloc.
While all of this Communist machinery was being put
into operation during 1959 and early 1960, many
American apologists for Castro continued to insist
that he was neither Communist nor dictatorial, just
"misunderstood." They snatched at every hopeful
atom of news from Cuba indicating that Castro might
be "getting more reasonable now," or "Castro is
But all of these dreams of hopeful illusion were
smashed by Castro himself when he dutifully
answered the call of Nikita Khrushchev in the summer
of 1960 and went to the United Nations as part of the Red Bloc "show of strength." At Castro's Harlem
headquarters the two dictators warmly embraced
each other. They were brothers and comrades.
Now that the Iron Curtain has come rumbling down on
little Cuba perhaps some Americans occasionally
reflect on the glowing description of Castro which
Herbert Matthews wrote for the New York Times in
1957: "Castro," he said, "has strong ideas of liberty,
democracy, social justice, the need to restore the
constitution, to hold elections."
Other Americans who chose the wrong side have
since said, "It is all so unfortunate. Perhaps it was
This last statement has a familiar ring. This is
precisely the theme which Dean Acheson put in his White Paper when he tried to explain why we lost
China. He excused it as "inevitable." But the Wedemeyer Report revealed that China was also lost
because of stupidity, incompetence or worse. China was lost when the State Department promoted an
arms embargo against this long-standing U.S. ally at
a time when she was fighting for her very existence.
The same kind of thinking put the arms embargo on
Batista. Both were lost. Both were casualties of
All of this led former Ambassador Gardner to remark
"We could have prevented it all and we didn't. If we'd
carried out normal relations with Batista, just carried
out our contracts, he (Batista) would have got out as
scheduled, come to live in Florida, and been replaced
by an ideal candidate."
"A pro-Batista man?" Gardner was asked.
"No, Marquez Sterling, a doctor, whom everybody
loved, was Batista's opponent. Ironically, although
against Batista, he had to flee Cuba because of
Events during 1961 demonstrated that the United
States was still not giving the Cuban situation
sufficient attention. None of the tragic errors of the
past were any worse than the fatal blunder which
occurred on April 17, 1961, when an abortive invasion
of Cuba was attempted at the Bay of Pigs under
circumstances which doomed it to failure before the
attack was even launched.
Badly organized, poorly equipped, and carrying the
sagging prestige of the United States with it, a little
band of less than 1400 Cubans landed from
antiquated ships to spark an "uprising against
Castro." Castro was waiting for them with Soviet
tanks, jet planes and Soviet guns. When the shooting was over the "invaders" were captured in a body. Communist propaganda machinery all over the world went into hysteria of screaming headlines against
American imperialism. "A first-class disaster for U.S.
prestige" wailed the free world press.
In the panic atmosphere which followed, Castro
facetiously said he might trade tractors for the
prisoners. Immediately misguided U.S. liberals began
collecting money for tractors to pay off Castro's
blackmail demand. Castro was so pleased to see
citizens from the most powerful nation in the world
cowering at his feet that he gleefully tantalized the
negotiators by boosting his demands. As should have
been expected, the negotiations came to nothing.
Responsible Americans began to demand a halt to all
this ridiculous pampering of a Soviet puppet. Serious
political leaders began to set down the plans for a
long-range strategy which would eventually liberate
the beleaguered people of Cuba.
1. Thus far the best political history on Fidel Castro is Red Star Over Cuba, by ex-Communist Nathaniel Weyl, Devin- Adair, 1960.
2.Alberto Nino,Antecentes ySecretos del 9 deAbril, Editorial Pax, Bogota, 1949, p. 77.
3.Nathaniel Weyl,Red StarOver Cuba, p. 33.
4. U.S. Department of Commerce Report, Investments in Cuba, p. 184.
5.Nathaniel Weyl,Red StarOver Cuba, p. 157.
6. Pravda, Moscow, February29, 1960.
7. New York Times, April 22, 1959, "Fear of Red's Role in Castro Regime Alarming Havana."
8.Nathaniel Weyl,Red StarOver Cuba, p. 180
Chapter Twelve
The Future Task
In this study we have made no attempt to cover up the
blunders of the past which free men have made in
dealing with Communism. In fact, all of these mistakes may be counted a benefit if we have learned
a lesson from each of them. Nevertheless, we
certainly would be guilty of the "decadent stupidity" which the Communists attribute to us if we allowed
ourselves to repeat these mistakes in the future.
In this chapter we shall deal with the task at hand. To
appreciate the problem we shall first discuss the
progress which the Communists have made under
their Timetable of Conquest. Then we shall deal with
the current line of Communist strategy. Finally we shall
describe some of the most important things which must be done to win.
The Communist Timetable of
To head off an enemy it is first necessary to know
where the enemy wants to go. The Communists have made no secret about this. Their plan first of all is to
take Asia, then Africa, next Europe and finally
America. Although this plan of conquest has been in Communist literature for several decades, it was
vigorously restated in 1953 when Red leaders
decided to set up a timetable of conquest for the
entire world and then take it continent by continent.
Total conquest is to be completed by around 1973.
Fortunately American military intelligence captured
this timetable at the close of the Korean War and
Senator William Knowland placed it in the Congressional Record under date of April 29, 1954,
page 5708.
Although the timetable is too lengthy to quote in its
entirety, selected statements are being presented with comments so the student may know what
progress the Communists have made in their plans to
take over the world.
"We have to; until we are certain of victory, take a
course which will not lead to war."
Official Communist strategy is to press for
advantages on all fronts but to back down in the face
of major military resistance. This will continue to be
their policy unless they could be certain of sudden
victory by a sneak attack which would wipe out all
U.S. capacity to retaliate. U.S. success during 1960
in launching a Polaris missile from a submerged
submarine made Soviet sneak attack plans obsolete.
A Red attack would bring devastating retaliation from
these constantly moving missile bases which now will
be roaming the seas. For the present, Red policy will
therefore have to be "a course which will not lead to war."
"Britain must be placated by being convinced that ...
the Communists and the capitalist countries can live
in peace."
Peaceful coexistence was not only sold to the people
of Britain but to Americans as well. Coexistence means to accept Communism as a permanent fixture
in the earth; to write off as past history the conquest of
the satellite nations; to placate Communist demands
so as to avoid crises and international tensions.
"Opportunities for trade will have a great influence
on the British mind."
This worked even better than the Red leaders
planned. Today not only Britain but the U.S. and 37
other members of the Western bloc have succumbed
to the lure of trade with the Sino-Soviet bloc.
"In the case of France ... she must be made to feel a
greater security in cooperating with us."
After World War II, Red forces in France made the Communist party the largest in the country. Before DeGaulle's seizure of power in 1958, Red influence
had helped to carry France to the brink of bankruptcy,
anarchy and civil war.
"Japan must be convinced that rearmament
endangers national security and that ... the
American forces distributed all over the world cannot
spare sufficient strength for the defense of Japan."
This was the kind of Communist agitation which
produced the 1960 Japanese riots and prevented
President Eisenhower from visiting Japan.
"Her (Japan's) desire for trade will offer great
possibilities for steering Japan away from the United
By 1960 Japan had regained her position as fifth in world trade. The U.S. steered Japan away from the
Sino-Soviet bloc by buying 23% of her exports and
providing 34.8% of her imports.
"By 1960 China's military, economic and industrial
power will be so developed that with a mere showof
force by the Soviet Union and China, the ruling
clique of Japan will capitulate."
This did not occur. Japan, with U.S. help, became
strong while China floundered under Communist
discipline and headed for widespread famine and
economic collapse.
"The United States must be isolated by all possible means."
This Communist project was making alarming
progress by 1960. Anti-U.S. propaganda all over the world had created the image of the "ugly American."
And this in spite of $50 billion in foreign aid. Red
expansion inAsia, Africa, Cuba, CentralAmerica and
South America has begun to awaken Americans to
the real threat of possible isolation.
"Whether we can prevent the United States from
starting the war (to defend her rights and liberties)
depends upon how much success we have in
isolating her and how effective is our peace
This clearly reflects the perfidy of Red propaganda to
use "peace" as a means of paralyzing U.S.
resistance as the Communists gradually take over. Here we see the Red definition of "peaceful
coexistence." It means "peaceful surrender."
"In the case of India, only peaceful means should be
adopted. Any employment of force will alienate
ourselves from the Arabic countries and Africa,
because India is considered to be our friend."
This plan to betray India through peaceful conquest is
definitely on the march. Nehru claims neutrality but is
a trained Marxist-socialist who has consistently lined
up with the Red leaders on most major issues. In the
hour of his downfall, he will no doubt ask the Western
nations to save him.
"After India has been won over, the problems of the
philippines and Arabic countries can be easily
solved by economic cooperation ... and coalitions.
This task may be completed by 1965."
Already the forces of Red subversion are clearly
apparent in both the Philippines and in Nasser's PanArabic Republic.
"Then a wave of revolution will sweep the whole
continent of Africa and the imperialists and the
colonizationists will be quickly driven into the sea."
Even by 1960 the Communists had built the fires of
revolutionary violence all over Africa. The colonial
powers were trying to get the natives to follow a policy
of "peaceful transition to independence" but many of
them were following the Red formula: "From
colonialism to chaos to Communism."
"With Asia and Africa disconnected with the
capitalist countries in Europe, there will be a total
economic collapse in Western Europe. Their
capitulation will be a matter of course."
In 1960 when the Belgians relinquished the Congo, it
created havoc in the Belgium economy. Each of the
colonial powers is being affected as the trade
relations with Africa are being disrupted. Eventually
the Reds hope to get an African-Asian strangle hold
on the economy of Europe. Every year this noose is
drawing tighter.
As for the United States, "crushing economic
collapse industrial breakdown will follow the
European crisis."
The plunging of the U.S. into a paralyzing depression
is part of the last-stage Soviet plan of conquest for
"Canada and South America will find themselves in
the same hopeless and defenseless condition."
It is true that if the U.S. were totally isolated,
intimidated and subverted, the whole Western
hemisphere would fall.
"Twenty years from now(which would be 1973) world
revolution will be an accomplished fact!"
Some phases of this plan of conquest have been
frustrated, but other phases are far ahead of
expectations. Considered overall, the Communist
Timetable of Conquest is alarmingly close to being
right on schedule.
Experts on Communist strategy point out that this
entire plan of conquest would collapse if the West
awakened and took the initiative to start pushing
Communism back on all fronts. They say the tragic
blunder of the West has been its continuous willingness to coexist, to accept Communism as a
permanent fixture in the earth, to assume that
Communist conquests were unalterable, to ignore the
fact that the Red leaders have admitted in the
timetable that they have more reason to be frightened
of military action than the West, and to allow free
nations to be intimidated and bluffed into appeasing a weak enemy.
How was this achieved?
Importance of the Psychological
The biggest mistake of the West has been allowing
itself to drift into a state of mental stagnation, apathy
and inaction. In some circles, motivations of
patriotism, loyalty and the traditional dream of
"freedom for all men" have been lying dormant or
have been paralyzed by a new kind of strange
thinking. Authorities say there is an urgent need for a
revolutionary change in our state of mind.
What is wrong with our "state of mind?"
First and foremost, we have been thinking the way the Communists want us to think. Our founding fathers would be alarmed to learn how confused many of our
people have become over such fundamental
problems as coexistence, disarmament, free trade,
the United Nations, recognition Red China, and a host
of related problems. Instead of maintaining a state of
intellectual vigilance, we have taken Communist
slogans as the major premises for too many of our
conclusions. Let us go down a list of current strategy
goals which the Communists and their fellow travelers
are seeking to achieve. These are all part of the
campaign to soften America for the final takeover. It
should be kept in mind that many loyal Americans are working for these same objectives because they are
not aware that these objectives are designed to
destroy us.
Current Communist Goals
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only
alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to
engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of
Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or
not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of
Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red
China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states
in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision
of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests
because the U.S. has agreed to suspend tests as
long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation
in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If
its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as
one-world government with its own independent
armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by
Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with
each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken
basic American institutions by claiming their activities
violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as
transmission belts for socialism and current
Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get
control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against
programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review
assignments, editorial writing, and policy-making
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by
degrading all forms of artistic expression. An
American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all
good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute
shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums.
"Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling
them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and
free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by
promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and
promiscuity as "normal, natural, and healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed
religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and
emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which
does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious
expression in the schools on the ground that it violates
the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it
inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern
needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations
on a world-wide basis.
30. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present
them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the
"common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and
discourage the teaching of American history on the
ground that it was only a minor part of "the big
picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history
since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give
centralized control over any part of the culture --
education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental
health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the
police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral
problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but
psychiatrists can understand or treat.
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive
control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage
promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from
the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to
suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and
insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American
tradition; that students and special-interest groups
should rise up and use "united force" to solve
economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native
populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally Reservation so the U.S.
cannot prevent the World Court from seizing
jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World
Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.
If the student will read the reports of Congressional
hearings together with available books by ex- Communists, he will find all of these Communist
objectives described in detail. Furthermore, he will
come to understand how many well-meaning citizens
have become involved in pushing forward the Communist program without realizing it. They became
converted to Communist objectives because they
accepted superficial Communist slogans. Soon they were thinking precisely the way the Communists wanted them to think. Let us examine some of these
problems at closer range.
What About Disarmament?
The Communists have created the illusion in free men's minds that "the way to peace is through
disarmament." We must not forget that this originated
as a Communist slogan. Now free men have adopted
it as their own and are even setting up special
commissions to explore ways and means to carry it
out. In this action we are deliberately closing our eyes
to everything we promised ourselves at the close of
World War II and again at the end of the Korean War.
Experts tell us that to disarm in the face of an obvious
and present danger is an immoral act. It is an act of
Here are just a few fundamental facts on disarmament which the experts who know Communism are
pleading with us to consider:
Disarmament means to depend upon agreements
instead of strength.
Agreements are absolutely useless unless they can
be enforced.
The fallacy of a disarmament agreement with Russia
(a nation which has violated 51 out of 53 agreements
already) is this: if Russia chose to secretly rearm we would have lost our capacity to enforce the
agreement. Such an agreement gives a dishonest
party a devastating advantage because of his
capacity to "arm secretly." In a vacuum of
disarmament, a government with criminal intentions
requires very few secret arms to overcome all
opposition. This is what Hitler and Mussolini taught
On February 3, 1961, Dr. Arnold Wolfers told the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations: "A few
easily concealed or clandestinely manufactured weapons would, in a totally disarmed world, give one
nation decisive military power over others.... A totally
disarmed world is also one in which Communists'
characteristics of secrecy and of a society organized
along military lines would give them maximum
But in all this talk about disarmament the thing to
remember is that Khrushchev would not dare disarm. His armed forces of six million -- including two million
secret police -- are not to fight the West but to maintain "domestic tranquility" behind the Iron Curtain. They are to suppress uprisings which have
occurred in the satellites and in Russia. Furthermore,
Khrushchev is continually haunted by the spectre of
the Red Chinese who would like nothing better than to
see the Russians disarm. So we repeat, Khrushchev would not dare disarm.
Finally, in answer to those who claim that an arms
race will lead to war, let us point out the rather obvious
fact that an arms race is not an underlying cause of war, but a symptom of political conflict. To disarm in
the face of political conflict invites war. The United
States was well on the way to disarming and
demobilizing when the Korean War jolted us into the
realization that vicious forces of conquest were still
stalking up and down the earth. Because that
predatory force has not relented, we have had to stay
In view of all these facts, it should be clear to anyone
that the cry for disarmament is not the message of
peace and freedom. It is the message of the enemy.
What About Peaceful Coexistence?
The Communists have created another illusion with
reference to peaceful coexistence. This is the idea
that the West must be willing to coexist with
Communism since the only alternative would be
annihilation through atomic war.
The real alternative to co-EXistence is co- REsistance. Experts in the field have been saying for
years that Communism does not have to be tolerated.
It has no moral, economic or political excuse for
existing. Furthermore, it is extremely vulnerable to many types of peaceful pressures which free men
have not yet used. We will discuss these in a later
section. At this point it is important simply to
emphasize that Communism can be beaten -- and it
can be done without atomic war. Therefore the whole
basis for arguing coexistence collapses. Coexistence
is a contradiction of terms because it means trying to
coexist with world conquest, which is impossible. One
must resist or be conquered. It also means accepting
the status quo of one-third of the human race in
bondage as a permanent working arrangement. It means accepting Communism in spite of its deceit,
subversion and broken covenants. It means tolerating
Communism without resistance.
The United States Congress was right when it
proclaimed in its Captive Nations Resolution of July,
"The enslavement of a substantial part of the world's
population by Communist imperialism makes a mockery of the idea of peaceful coexistence."1
And the President sounded a note of awakening
resistance when he said:
"It is appropriate and proper to manifest to the
peoples of the captive nations the support of the Government and the people of the United States of
America for their just aspirations for freedom and
national independence."2
What About the United Nations?
All over the world people demand that some type of
international arena be created where disputes
between nations can be arbitrated or settled without
resorting to war. Two attempts have been made to
create such an arena -- the League of Nations and the United Nations. Both ran into difficulty and for the
same reason. Both organizations started out as
exclusive federations of "peace-loving" nations and
then turned right around and tried to convert
themselves into world parliaments where all nations
could be represented including warlike or predatory
nations. In both cases the predatory nations
successfully seized power and almost completely
nullified all the high-sounding phrases contained in
their original statements of purpose.
As far as the United Nations is concerned, this weakness was emphasized by John Foster Dulles when he addressed the American Bar Association. He said the failures of the U.N. are due primarily to
the fact that its "effective functioning depends upon
cooperation with a nation which is dominated by an
international party seeking world domination."3
Henry Cabot Lodge pointed out the same thing: "In
1945 and 1946 ... the United States assumed that
Russia was a peace-loving nation, and the whole United Nations was based on the assumption that the
alliance between the United States and the Soviet
Union would continue, which of course, was a very
false, tragically false, assumption."4
There are numerous provisions in the U.N. Charter which permit predatory powers such as the USSR or
her satellites to bring the orderly processes of the U.N. to a dead halt. In the U.N.'s 15 years of
existence, the USSR has used this organization for
subversion behind the scenes and legal sabotage in
her open councils. This has not only frustrated the
peace-preserving powers of the U.N. but has almost
completely paralyzed individual action by the other members because they have committed themselves
to rely on the U.N. to settle disputes.
When one reflects upon the Soviet veto of the U.N.
attempt to censure Russia following her invasion of
Hungary and her veto of the U.N. attempt to have an
investigation of the killing of four Americans on the RB-47 in 1960, it emphasizes the long list of
atrocities which Soviet leaders have committed without punishment or censure even though every one
of them violated Article 2 of the U.N. Charter. Consider these provisions:
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the
sovereign equality of all members.
2. All Members ... shall fulfill in good faith the
obligations assumed by them in accordance with the
present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes
by peaceful means....
4. All Members shall refrain ... from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state....
5. All members shall ... refrain from giving assistance
to any state against which the United Nations is taking
preventive or enforcement action.
In Hungary, China, Southeast Asia, Cuba, Africa, Central and SouthAmerica, Korea -- one might say in
every sector of the world -- the USSR has violated
these principles continually.
As a result of this vast contradiction between promise
and performance, the whole U.N. complex is gradually
reaching an impasse or stalemate. What then can be
done with Red aggression, with its worldwide
program of insurrection, riots, civil war and conquest?
And what should be done with the U.N.?
Because the United States is the most wealthy and
powerful nation in the world, she is expected to
provide an answer. And because practically every
other imaginable suggestion has been presented, it is
time to come up with the simple, direct answer which we should have adopted long ago: "Turn back to the
original intent of the Charter. Restrict U.N. membership to peace-loving nations!"
This is precisely what Article 4 provides, and it has
been the violation of this article which has produced most of the trouble. Because we have waited so long
to eliminate the warlike nations, this change will
involve some difficulties. But this would be nothing
compared to the difficulties which lie ahead if free men pursue their present course. Due to the veto
technicalities and numerous violations of American
constitutional law in the existing Charter, it would be
necessary to reconstruct the entire framework of the U.N. Nevertheless it could be done.
No doubt some would object to the elimination of
Russia and her satellites from the U.N. on the ground
that it would prevent the U.N. from serving as a world
The answer to that objection is the proven fact that the U.N. can never serve peace-loving peoples as long
as the U.N. tries to accommodate its forum to the
harassment and bedevilment of nations who make no
pretense at fulfilling their obligations either under the Charter or under international law.
What if the founding fathers of the United States had
tried to include King George in the Constitutional
Convention? The results would have been as
frustrating and aggravating as they have turned out to
be with a predatory nation and her satellites sitting in
the U.N. Assembly of peace-loving nations. The
founding fathers would no doubt look at our present
U.N. operation and say: "It is illogical. It is illegal. It is
impossible." Fifteen years of U.N. history painfully
prove it.
But would not such action drive Russia and her
satellites into a second association of Red nations
and create a contest of power blocs?
This already exists. The only difference would be that
the Red bloc would not be in the U.N. to sabotage the
united desires of the peace-loving nations as it does
Would not such action provoke war?
Not as long as the West remains strong. It would not weaken the West's military position at all. If anything,
such action would strengthen it. It would also create
the necessary federation of strength to start putting
economic and political pressures on Communism
and thereby allow her enslaved peoples to strike from
within and eventually destroy this spectre of human
tyranny. This new arrangement would give us the ideal
vehicle to begin implementing all the fine promises we made in the "Captive Nations' Proclamation" on
July, 1959. Is there no other way? Apparently not! All
other approaches turn out to be diversionary. They merely postpone the day of honest decision. If free men united to bring about this needed change, the
new federation of peace-loving nations could perform
a political miracle -- one which would give new
assurance for both peace and prosperity.
We have a task to perform and time is running out.
Is the Communist Movement a
Legitimate Political Party?
This question grows out of another illusion which the Communists created in our minds. They induced us to
accept the idea that Communism is a legitimate
expression of political action. The truth is that
Communism is a criminal conspiracy. It is a mistake
to treat it as a political party.
Political groups solve their problems by entering into
negotiations, attending conferences, and working out
their differences with bona fide compromises which
all parties are expected to perform. This has never worked with the Communists because they use
deceit, disregard of laws, violation of treaties,
intimidation, subversion and open insurrection as
basic tools of conquest. This makes it a criminal
Once we realize that Communism is a criminal
operation, many new avenues of action open before
us. For example, a criminal problem is not handled by
negotiation and compromise but by following four
1. Immobilize the criminal.
2. Render him harmless.
3. Gain his confidence.
4. Rehabilitate him.
It may be recalled that these are the four steps which were used in dealing with both Germany and Japan when their leaders pursued the criminal course of
action which precipitated World War II. The Western
allies followed these steps and Germany and Japan were not only immobilized and rendered harmless but
they were successfully rehabilitated. After the war West Germany and Japan became two of America's
closest supporters.
Does this mean a preventive war should be waged
against the criminal Communists? Not at all! It means
that while there is still time and before a major
shooting war is necessary, free men should utilize
available peaceful pressures to immobilize the Soviet
empire and work for the day when her own people
can overthrow the tyrannical rule of Red leaders from
within. What peaceful pressures are available?
We have already mentioned the importance of taking
away the illegal membership which the USSR and her
satellites hold in the U.N. Another highly potent weapon is available which would cut off Communist
and espionage machinery. This is the peaceful weapon of severing diplomatic relations. It is the
action Thomas Jefferson recommended for nations which treat us "atrociously." He said:
"I am anxious that we should give the world still
another lesson by showing to them other modes of
punishing injuries than by war.... I love, therefore ...
(the) proposition of cutting off all communications with
the nation which has conducted itself so atrociously."5
Recently Senator Barry Goldwater and other students
of the problem have advocated this very type of action
against the Soviet empire. There are plenty of
reasons to justify it. Russia is guilty of:
Continuous violations of treaties and covenants.
Repeated violations of international law.
Vicious subversion and interference in the domestic
affairs of other nations.
Open warfare against peace-loving peoples.
Provocative acts with the leveling of insults and false
charges against the United States.
Illegal killing of American servicemen.
Illegal shooting down of American planes.
Illegal imprisonment of American citizens.
The lack of political courage to sever diplomatic
relations with Russia is often covered up with the plea
that we might lose some important advantages by
isolating Russia in this manner.
What advantages? Senator Goldwater has pointed
out that there are none. Since the United States
recognized the USSR in 1933, not one single
advantage has accrued to the United States which
could not have been achieved equally well -- and often
far more easily -- without recognition. Recognition
turned out to be a tool of conquest for the Communists.
In addition to isolating Communism internationally, it
also needs to be outlawed domestically. This is so
important that Lenin said the Communists must do
everything possible to avoid it. Whittaker Chambers
summarized this point when he said: "Lenin had
tirelessly taught that when a whole Communist Party
is outlawed, it is almost wholly paralyzed because it
can no longer send into the surrounding community
the filaments whereby it spreads its toxins and from
which it draws its strength of life."6
But would not a statute outlawing the Communist party
threaten legitimate political parties? Not if the statute were aimed at any organization "advocating the
overthrow of the government by force and violence." Criminal law strikes at illegal acts or any conspiracy
to commit illegal acts. A conspiracy to overthrow the
government by force and violence is therefore
criminal in nature. Any organization which promotes
such illegal activities should be outlawed. As a
number of authorities have already pointed out, it is
foolish to treat the Communists as a legitimate
political party as it would be to give bank robbers
business licenses.
Is the Soviet Empire Vulnerable to
Economic Pressure?
Probably the greatest single weakness of the SinoSoviet bloc is her shaky economy. Here is a soft spot where peaceful pressures could be devastating. No
amount of Soviet propaganda can cover up the
obvious collapse of the Chinese communes and the
sluggish inefficiency of the Soviet collectivized farms.
Every single Soviet satellite is languishing in a
depression. Even Pravda has openly criticized the
lack of bare essentials and the shoddy quality of
Russian-made goods.
These factors of austerity and deprivation add to the
hatred and misery of the people which constantly feed
the flames of potential revolt. Terrorist tactics have
been used by the Red leaders to suppress uprisings.
In spite of the virtual "state of siege" which exists
throughout the Soviet empire, there are many
outbreaks of violent protest.
All of this explains why the Soviet leaders are
constantly pleading for "free trade," "long-term loans,"
"increased availability of material goods from the West." Economically, Communism is collapsing but
the West has not had the good sense to exploit it.
Instead, the United States, Great Britain and 37 other Western powers are shipping vast quantities of
goods to the Sino-Soviet bloc.
Some business leaders have had the temerity to
suggest that trade with the Reds helps the cause of
peace. They suggest that "you never fight the people
you trade with." Apparently they cannot even
remember as far back as the late Thirties when this
exact type of thinking resulted in the sale of scrap iron
and oil to the Japanese just before World War II. After
the attack on Pearl Harbor it became tragically clear
that while trade with friends may promote peace,
trade with a threatening enemy is an act of selfdestruction. Have we forgotten that fatal lesson so
Could Peaceful Pressures Cause the
Empire to Explode Internally?
The Communist leaders have always been extremely
sensitive to their own internal weaknesses. They
frequently resort to capital punishment to suppress the
bitter criticism of their own enslaved people. They use
propaganda to boast of pretended success in the
very areas where they suffer the greatest failures. A
close scrutiny of recent history will demonstrate that
time and again free men could have tied the Communist conspiracy in knots if only they had been watching for opportunities to exploit fuming internal
pressures which were ready to explode.
Many of these pressures are building today. Each one
of them represents a golden opportunity for direct
action by the free West. But free men must first make
up their minds whether they reallywant freedom for
the Iron Curtain captives. Is it worth giving up a little
trade? Is it worth the temporary political heat of a
showdown in the U.N.? Is it worth the momentary
clamor which Red agents would foment if we withdrew
diplomatic recognition?
It is extremely confusing to freedom fighters --
especially in the satellites -- when they watch the
failing Communist economy being bolstered and fed
by 39 Western nations. In the U.N. the distortion of
justice and common sense bewilders them. In
diplomatic circles the constant capitulation and
compromise outrages them. A refugee from a Russian slave labor camp wrote to me: "There must
be a noose of ignorance around the necks of the West. Don't they know we would eventually overthrow
the Communist leaders if the West would just stop
feeding, fondling and coddling them?"
In the minds of these people, it borders on criminal
neglect when we withhold the impact of powerful
peaceful pressures which are available to us. During
World War II we promised freedom to all of these
satellite peoples. And we should never let the
Communists forget that Stalin promised them
freedom. In his order of the day, No. 130, dated May
1, 1942, Joseph Stalin declared:
"It is not our aim to seize foreign lands or to subjugate
foreign people.... We have not and cannot have such war aims as the imposition of our will and regime on
the Slavs and other enslaved peoples of Europe who
are waiting our aid. Our aim consists in assisting
these people in their struggle for liberation from
Hitler's tyranny and then setting them free to rule in
their own lands as they desire."7
Neither should the West allow Nikita Khrushchev to
forget what he has said: "The Soviet Union deeply
sympathizes with all the nations striving to win and
uphold their independence. And these nations can
rest assured that the Soviet Union, without any meddling in their internal affairs, without stipulating
any conditions, will help them to strengthen their
independence for which they fought so hard."8
The unbelievable bald-faced deception of such
statements should motivate free nations in their firm
resolve to strike back at Communism on every front.
Too often the western apologists for coexistence and
"peace at any price" are panicked when it is
suggested that economic and political pressures be
applied in order to squeeze the Soviet empire into an
internal explosion. They wail that such action will
disturb the peace behind the Iron Curtain. And indeed
it would. In fact, it should be a standard object of
strategy to disturb the peace of the Red leaders. This
was precisely what President Woodrow Wilson was
talking about when he said:
"I will not take any part in composing difficulties that
ought not to be composed, and a difficulty between an
enslaved people and its autocratic rulers ought not to
be composed. We in America have stood from the
day of our birth for the emancipation of people
throughout the world who are living unwillingly under
governments which were not of their choice.... So long
as wrongs like that exist in the world, you cannot bring
permanent peace to the world. I go further than that.
So long as wrongs of that sort exist, you ought not to
bring permanent peace to the world, because those wrongs ought to be righted, and enslaved peoples
ought to be free to right them."9
Just the moment the Western powers develop the
courage to clamp a total trade embargo on the Communist empire and then combine it with a policy
of "go home and take your spies with you," the hearts
of Iron Curtain freedom fighters can once more surge with hope.
Not until then will America's eloquent Captive Nations
Proclamation mean anything.
What Can the Ordinary Individual
The war between freedom and slavery is not just a
fight to be waged by Congressmen, the President,
soldiers and diplomats. Fighting Communism,
Socialism and the subversion of constitutional
government is everybody's job. And working for the
expansion of freedom is everybody's job. It is a basic
American principle that each individual knows better
than anyone else what he can do to help once he has
become informed. No citizen will have to go far from
his own home to find a faltering battle line which
needs his aid. Communist influences are gnawing
away everywhere and thousands of confused citizens
often aid and abet them by operating in a vacuum of
their own ignorance. The task is therefore to become
informed and then move out for action!
Just to stimulate a little positive thinking, here are a
few elementary suggestions for different types of
Suggestions for Parents
1. Stay close to your children to make sure they are
being trained to think like Washington and Lincoln, not
like Marx and Lenin.
2. In providing physical needs for your family, don't
forget their spiritual needs. We are in an ideological war. From a Marxist viewpoint an atheistic mind is
already three-fourths conquered.
3. Take your children to church, don't send them. Be
sure they are getting true religious values, not modernistic debunking.
4. Help your children grow up. Don't fall for the current
Socialist-Communist line that parents are a detriment
to their children. They are only a detriment when they
don't do their job.
5. Children require a formula of 90% love and
6. Do not fall for the "permissive" school of
psychology which says discipline will harm human
development. Such thinking produces hoodlums with maladjusted personalities who are likely to fall for
every "ism" that comes along. A child needs to know
that he lives in an orderly world. Discipline is part of it
-- not extreme harshness but a reasonable and
consistent enforcement of the rules.
7. Because "youth problems" happened to be one of my own areas of professional study, I wrote a book
designed to answer the Communist and Socialist
charge that modern parents cannot do a good job of
raising children.10
8. Be active in PTA. If you are not, Communists and
centralized planners will take over.
9. Have a "freedom library" in your home. Include
good biographies of the founding fathers.
10. Take a little time each day to keep up with
political problems at home and abroad.
11. Subscribe to a good news magazine.
12. Where you have older children, make current
events part of the dinner table talk. Be quick to point
out left-wing slanting of news, TV or radio broadcasts.
There is far more of this slanting than most people
13. Organize a family, a neighborhood or church study
group. Help your family realize that there is a great
struggle going on in the world which they can help to win.
14. Let your children see that you are interested in
civic affairs, that you participate in political affairs, that
you are concerned with what is going on. They borrow many of their own attitudes from you.
Suggestions for Teachers
1. The most important single force in winning against
Communism is in the field of education. Therefore you
are in the front-line trenches.
2. Be certain you have taken time to get a good
background on Communistic thought so you can
detect it quickly wherever it appears.
3. Define for students the difference between the
factors which made Americans the first free people in modern times and the principles which have
destroyed freedom wherever the Socialists and
Communists have taken over.
4. Help the students understand that free enterprise
has produced and distributed more material wealth
than any other system man has yet discovered. Point
out that it also permits most of our citizens to make a
living doing the things they enjoy. At least they can
change jobs if they don't like what they are doing. It is
also vital for students to appreciate that the remaining weaknesses in our system are important, but they are minute compared to the monumental problems of the
bare-subsistence economies under Socialism and
5. Beware of those who come pretending to help
education when they are trying to seize control of
education. Socialist and Communist planners have
ambitions to eliminate all local control -- which means
the teachers themselves would lose control.
6. Be alert to the fact that education was infiltrated by
the Socialist-Communist contingent over thirty-five
years ago. Many of them were top-echelon
personalities who worked their way into leading
educational organizations. Because they were hard workers they gained sweeping control of some of our most respected institutions.
7. Read "Education for One Socialist World," which is
Chapter 8 in The U.N. Record, by Chesly Manly
(Henry Regnery Co., Chicago, 1955). On page 175
Mr. Manly lists a number of books which every teacher
should read in order to be aware of the attack against
American education during the past four decades.
8. In addition, you will find the following books helpful:
Conquest of the American Mind, by Dr. Felix Wittmer, (Meador Publishing Co., Boston)
What's Happened To Our Schools? by Rosalie M. Gordon, a pamphlet published by America's Future,
Inc., New Rochelle, New York.
The Turning of the Tides, by Paul W. Shafer and
John Howland Snow. (Long House Publishers.)
Progressive Education Is Reducation, by Jones and
Olivier. (Meador Publishing Co., Boston.)
Brainwashing In The High Schools, by Dr. E. Merrill
Root. (Devin-Adair, New York)
Communist-Socialist Propaganda In American
Schools, by Verne P. Kaub (Published by Lakeshore
Press, Madison, Wisconsin.)
9. If any of the educational organizations to which you
belong are Socialist-oriented, try to recapture them. Do not try to do it alone. Gather a group of alerted
teachers around you and move forward as an
organized group.
10. Encourage the teaching of "Communist
Problems" in the school. Such a course can become
an excellent vehicle to teach American students how
to appreciate their own way of life. The name of the
course is important. "Communist Problems" is likely
to be more acceptable than teaching "Communism."
11. Watch for slanted passages in text books.
Socialist authors have invaded the textbook field. So
have some with even more radical views.
Brainwashing in the High Schools, by E. Merrill Root,
is an analysis of 11 American history books which
reflect the destructive left-wing line.
12. Don't be misled by the current atheistic drive to
take God out of the classroom. "Separation of church
and state" was to keep creeds out of the curriculum,
but not God. It would be as unconstitutional to teach
irreligion in the classroom as it would be to
emphasize some particular religion. As teachers we
are not to teach a particular faith, but parents are within their rights when they insist that the classroom
is not be used by those few teachers who seek to
destroy faith. Teachers who believe that teaching
atheism is a necessary part of a good education are
not really qualified to teach in a Judaic-Christian
culture. They are entitled to be atheists but, as public
employees, they are not entitled to teach it. If they do,
they are violating an important constitutional principle.
13. Encourage patriotic speakers at school
assemblies. Excellent films are also available. Many
organizations now have well-informed speakers who
can give impressive talks on subjects which arouse
excellent student response.
14. When a Freedom Forum is held in your area, try
to attend.
Suggestions for Students
1. The mind of the student is considered a major
battlefield by Communist strategists. The Communist
conquest of a country is always preceded by the
extensive activities of "converted intellectuals." However, the most vigorous antagonists of
Communism are some of these same intellectuals
who have been disillusioned and returned to the side
of freedom.
2. You will never have more time to study Communism
than while you are in school. Try to get a genuine
understanding of it. Learn its philosophy, its history
and its fallacies.
3. When you run across dedicated Socialists,
remember that the only difference between a Socialist
and a Communist is in the method of takeover. The
desire to seize monolithic control of society is the
same in both. Sometimes people forget that USSR
stands for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Some people count Socialism "good" and
Communism "bad." In reality the two are twins.
4. Be quick to detect left-wing slanting in textbooks
and lectures.
5. Become acquainted with the latest Communist
"line." Work up answers to their charges and
6. Be sure to remain fair and forthright. Never stoop to Communist tactics to win a point.
7. You can enjoy school far more when your education
becomes purposeful. Get acquainted with the Communist problems and it will suddenly make
economics, history, philosophy, political science,
economics, history, philosophy, political science,
sociology and psychology come alive. These are all
related to the war for survival in which we are now
8. Be conscious of the fact that people look at world
events through one of two windows. Out of one window the students (and sometimes the professor)
see only blue skies. Out of the other window the
student can see storm clouds. This is the window to watch. This is where history is being made, and the
person who doesn't keep his eye on this window is
caught unawares when the storm breaks. On the day
of the Pearl Harbor attack, most Americans had to move from window No. 1 to window No. 2 with great
speed. They came close to being too late. Damage
from the world's threatening political storms can be
avoided only by anticipating them -- by being vigilant
and alert.
9. If you have difficulty in philosophy and your mind is
plagued with doubts, read the experience of a student
described in the last chapter of this book.
10. Resist the radical element on campus who
advocates "mass action" and violent demonstrations.
These are usually the tools of Communist agitators.
They get students to demonstrate, and this usually
provokes a fight. When the police try to restore order,
the Communists slip away in an effort to let the
students take the blame. When Communist agitators
got the students to wreck the Congressional hearings
at San Francisco during May of 1960, the judge
decided to release them because he felt the students
could already see how they had been duped into
fronting for professional anti-Americans.
11. Organize a student group to study Communism
and Americanism. Challenge Socialists and pro- Communists on the campus. Publish a paper. Set up
a speaker's bureau. Write letters to your school
paper. Get experience in making peaceful
democratic processes work.
12. A rapidly growing student organization with a
patriotic purpose is "The Torchbearers." Suggestions
on how to set up a school chapter may be obtained by writing to The Torchbearers, 5354 W. 126th Street, Hawthorne, California.
Suggestions for Businessmen
1. Remember that Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Madison, Adams, and the rest of the founding fathers were not "colonial aristocrats" as some textbooks
proclaim, but were just successful businessmen.
Because they were willing to sit down and think
through the problems of their day, we inherited a free
2. Take time from the pressures of business to stay
informed. Subscribe to a good news magazine.
3. Become a member of an organization which will
send you frequent intelligence reports on current
problems. One of the most effective private agencies
in this field is the American Security Council, 205
West Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois.
4. Take an active part in the political party of your
choice. Watch for the strong Socialist influence which
is trying to take over both parties. Do not hesitate to
throw your financial strength and your time behind the
fight for freedom. It cost Washington $65,000 to leave
his business and serve in the Revolutionary Army. In
current inflated money values this would represent
nearly half a million dollars.
5. If you belong to a service club, get it in the fight for
freedom. Most civic clubs have a special committee
to inspire patriotic interests. Invite speakers to keep
the business community alert.
6. Sponsor essay and speech contests in the schools
to promote American ideals and resistance to
deceptive Communist propaganda.
7. Openly resist the sale of goods to the Soviet
empire and call for a total embargo against the USSR
and her satellites.
8. Work for a more equitable tax structure which is not
arbitrary and confiscatory. Economic freedom is part
of political freedom.
9. If your employees are in a union, seek the
cooperation of union officials in conducting a study
course on Communism for your personnel. If no union
is involved, ask your employees whether they would
like such a course. The American Security Council
can provide a complete program with speakers, films,
tapes and literature. Many other organizations are
also available to help.
10. Get your local Chamber of Commerce behind
regular Freedom Forums which will help keep the
entire community alert.
11. Be careful not to contribute to an organization until
you know it is a bona fide patriotic group. Unknowingly, some businessmen have been
financing cited Communist-front organizations. If you
are a member of the American Security Council, you
can check on any organization or any individual
through their files.
12. Constantly keep in mind that American business
is a major target for Communist propaganda. Be alert
to any activities which could feed ammunition to the
13. Furnish views and suggestions to your State and
Federal legislators. A letter to a congressman has more impact than many people realize.
Suggestions for Legislators
1. The war between freedom and slavery can be lost
in the legislative halls of free men. The wave of
Socialism which is sweeping many free western
nations toward a kind of suppressive feudalism is
gaining ground. In this battle our legislators are on the
first line of defense.
2. The entire fabric of American security has been
badly weakened by technical decisions of the
Supreme Court in recent years. The only remedy is
legislative action to restore these security laws.
3. Federal legislators should continue to support the Congressional Committees which are under attack by
the Communist Party and their fellow travelers. This
attack is a top priority project of the Communist Party
at the present time.
4. Restore to Congressional committees the right to
determine whether the questions asked of pro- Communist witnesses are pertinent.
5. Restore to Congressional committees the same
freedom to investigate Communists and pro- Communists that these committees have always had when investigating business and labor problems.
6. Restore to the states the right to enforce their own
anti-subversive laws.
7. Restore to the Smith Act the provision which makes it a crime to teach or advocate the violent
overthrow of the Government.
8. Restore to the SmithAct the meaning of "organize" which includes organizational work done after 1945
so that Communist agents cannot hide behind the
statute of limitations.
9. Restore to the executive branch of the government
the right to determine "reasonable grounds" and to
dismiss security risks in both sensitive and nonsensitive positions of the Government.
10. Restore to the states the right to exclude from
public employment and education those who refuse to
testify about their Communist activities and
11. Restore to the executive branch the right to
question aliens awaiting deportation about subversive
associates and contacts, and the right to deport
aliens who are found to be Communists after entering
the United States.
12. Restore to the executive branch the right to deny
passports to those who refuse to sign a non- Communist affidavit.
Communist affidavit.
13. Restore to the states the right to exclude from the
practice of law those who have been members of the Communist conspiracy or who refuse to testify about
Communist activities.
14. Be alert to any attempt by left-wing forces to
dismantle or emasculate the FBI.
15. Put into force the excellent recommendations of
the Commission on Government Security which were
published in June, 1957, but have never been acted
16. Become familiar with the advantages of using
powerful peaceful pressures against the USSR,
especially in the economic and political fields.
Suggestions for the Press
1. Keep in mind the constant effort of the Communist
apparatus to plant its agents in all mass
communications media.
2. Familiarize yourself with the current Communist line which appears earlier in this chapter. Watch for
individuals who shift with that line -- often contradicting
themselves to accommodate the latest zig or zag of
party strategy.
3. In fulfilling the task of exposing crime, corruption
and inefficiency in the American culture, be careful not
to destroy confidence in American institutions.
Because the negative forces in our society are more
likely to be "news" than the positive accomplishments,
it is easy to over-emphasize the negative side and
provide extremely damaging propaganda to the
4. Run features on current issues which reflect a solid
American interpretation of the problem. The Communist avalanche of literature is often
compounded by a left-wing slant to the news on a
syndicated wire which leaves the American point of
view practically unexpressed. More and more
newspaper editors are recognizing this problem and
are doing something about it.
5. Use quotations from American patriots for box
stories and fillers.
6. Develop a program of liaison with public officials
so they will have an assurance of your ability to keep
a confidence. It is desirable to have the press briefed
on developments even though they may be
confidential. Most officials start out with a desire to
cooperate closely with the press, but they become
secretive when distortions and premature releases weaken or destroy their capacity to get their job done
7. Some members of the press have the knack of
detecting Communist influences in public life and
have made excellent contributions by pointing these
out. Temporarily, this action may not be popular, but it
gives a newsman stature as events sustain his
analysis. We need more analysts who are informed
and sensitive to the techniques of the Communist
Suggestions for Ministers
1. The churches became a major target for Communist-Socialist infiltration many years ago.
These people were successful in capturing many key
positions in a number of important religious
organizations. Some religious leaders openly
advocate and defend Communist principles. They are
apologists for the Soviet Union and even advocate
capitulation under threat of atomic war.
2. Study Judaism, Christianity and Communism to a
point where you can quickly detect the fallacies which
some persons in high places disseminate from their
3. Develop a Bible-reading congregation.
4. Make religion a practical, dynamic force in the lives
of the people.
5. Resist the erosion of the Modernists who seek to
discredit the Bible and to define God as an imaginary
non-reality. As we pointed out in the first chapter of
this book, many of those who started out a century
ago to attack the Bible and to destroy our religious
culture were close associates of Karl Marx.
6. Be alert to detect those who use "Social
Christianity" to cover up the fact that they are not
Christians at all.
7. Watch for those who would use the principles of
peace, brotherhood, tolerance, and Christian charity
to obscure the conspiratorial aspects of Communist
"peace." The peace of Communism partakes of the
prison and the grave. Remind professional pacifists who have accepted the paralyzing peace propaganda
of the Communists that the same Jesus who taught
"love thy enemy" never advocated surrendering to
him. The same Jesus who said, "Turn the other
cheek" to avoid quarreling and bickering in the
ordinary course of life, also said to take a sword to
preserve life.11 The Jesus of Nazareth who cleansed
the temple was demonstrating that Right deserves to
be defended.
8. If you come across those who labor under the misconception that Communism and Christianity have
a common denominator, ask them to read the
appendix in this book entitled, "Did the Early
Christians Practice Communism?"
9. Because of the counseling which ministers do,
there are strenuous efforts to make inroads into the ministry. Be alert to the drive by certain analytical
psychiatrists to have ministers accept their amoral
philosophy. They opine those feelings of guilt and a
sense of right and wrong cause mental illnesses. This
entire concept is being discredited. There is far more mental health in the Judaic-Christian concept of
resisting temptation and overcoming mistakes than
ever emanated from the Freudian couch. I have
prepared a rather comprehensive article on this
subject, entitled, "Law Enforcement Looks at Mental
Health," which appears in the professional police magazine, Law& Order, for March, 1961 {and also in
this infobase}.
10. In counseling students who are having difficulty
reconciling the many conflicting views which they hear
in school, you might refer them to the last chapter in
this book which is designed to help the student
recognize the ideological conflict now in progress. It is
hoped that this material will help them find their way
through the confusion of many voices so as to maintain both moral and intellectual integrity.
11. Be careful to read books before you recommend
them. Recently some church groups have been
induced to recommend books which turned out to be
filled with obscenity. This is an important part of the
Socialist-Communist campaign to discredit religious
culture. What technique could better serve their
purpose than to have the churches themselves
sponsor degenerate literature!
12. Set up study groups on both youth and adult levels
to study Communism. Have qualified and well
informed persons serve as discussion leaders.
The West Can Win
With every citizen watching for an opportunity to strike
a blow for freedom, the force of Communism can be
halted, smothered, and then eliminated. This is our
task. Without our tolerance and help the Communist
empire would never have become the second
strongest power in the earth. Now we have the job of
dismantling it. Nikita Khrushchev knows the pressures we could bring pouring down upon him if our people
ever make up their minds to move.
Any who may lack the courage for positive action might well recall the threat of Manuilsky which we have
already quoted. He described Communist strategy for
the period we are now passing through:
"We shall begin by launching the most spectacular
peace movement on record.... The capitalist
countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to
cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at
another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard
is down, we shall smash them with our clenched
Today Communism is advancing on all fronts.
Authorities say that if we let her feed on the West just
a few more years it may be too late. How much better
to send forth the message:"There is a way to stop
Communism and do it without a major war!"
If free men are willing to study the problem and move
across the world in one vast united front, it is entirely
possible for the human race to celebrate the close of
the Twentieth Century with this monumental
"Freedom in our time for all men!"
1. The full text of the Captive Nations Proclamation is
contained in U.S.News & World Report, August 3, 1959, p. 87.
2.U.S.News & World Report, August 3, 1959, p. 87.
3. William W. Wade, The U.N. Today, H. W. Wilson Company, NewYork, p. 134.
4. "The Case for Severing Relations with Soviet Rulers," U.S. News & World Report,December 17, 1954, p. 139.
5. Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904-1905, Vol. IX, p. 285.
6. Whittaker Chambers, Witness, p. 210.
7. On The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, Foreign
Language Publishing House, Moscow, 1946, p. 59.
8. From Nikita Khrushchev's letter to the Mexican Newspaper, Excelsior, February28, 1958.
9.Quoted in "Uncompromising Idealism," byDavid Lawrence, U.S.News & World Report, August 31, 1959, p. 104.
10. W. Cleon Skousen, So You Want To Raise A Boy?, Doubleday,NewYork, 1962.
11. Luke 22:36
12. Quoted by Joseph Z. Kornfeder who was a student at the
school. In a letter to Dr. J.D. Bales of Harding College dated March 7, 1961, Mr. Kornfeder said: "Enclosed is a copy of the
quote you asked for. It is part of what he (Manuilsky) said to a
group of senior Lenin School students at a conference held in Moscow, March, 1930, at which I, as one of the students, was

Appendix A
What Do Defenders of
Communism Say?
The voluminous literature of Communism contains
bold and sometimes harsh answers to almost any
question a student may care to ask. However, few
students have an opportunity to meet anyone who will
admit he is a well indoctrinated Communist, and few
people have the time or inclination to read the
technical, cumbersome documents of Communist
lore. Therefore, the following symposium is designed
to bring some of these answers together under a
number of general headings.
It will be observed that Communist propaganda
sometimes contradicts these answers when a true
statement of doctrine would prove embarrassing. However, the answers presented here are taken in most instances from the foremost exponents of
Marxism and in all such cases represent
unembellished, non-propaganda answers which
teachers of Marxism pass along to their own
Peaceful Co-existence
Student: "Do you think there is a possibility that the
democracies and the Soviet can somehow co-exist?"
Lenin: "The existence of the Soviet Republic side by
side with imperialist states for a long time is
unthinkable. One or the other must triumph in the end.
And before that end supervenes, a series of frightful
collisions between the Soviet Republic and the
bourgeois states will be inevitable."1
Official Statement: "The proletariat in the Soviet
Union harbours no illusions as to the possibility of a
durable peace with the imperialists. The proletariat
knows that the imperialist attack against the Soviet
Union is inevitable; that in the process of a proletarian world revolution wars between proletarian and
bourgeois states, wars for the emancipation of the world from capitalism, will necessarily and inevitably
arise. Therefore, the primary duty of the proletariat, as
the fighter for socialism, is to make all the necessary
political, economic and military preparations for these wars, to strengthen its Red Army -- that mighty weapon of the proletariat -- and to train the masses of
the toilers in the art of war."2
Student: "Why do you not go ahead and prove that
Communism will work in your own country before
trying to force it upon other nations?"
Lenin: "Final victory can be achieved only on an
international scale, and only by the combined efforts
of the workers of all countries."3
Stalin: "This means that the serious assistance of the
international proletariat is a force without which the
problem of the final victory of socialism in one country
cannot be solved."4
Student: "I am in favor of cordial relations between
nations. Would you call me an Internationalist?"
P.E. Vyshinsky: "At present the only determining
criterion ... is: Are you for or against the USSR, the motherland of the world proletariat? An internationalist
is not one who verbally recognizes international
solidarity or sympathizes with it. A real internationalist
is one who brings his sympathy and recognition up to
the point of practical and maximum help to the USSR
in support and defense of the USSR by every means
and in every possible form."5
Student: "I thought that during World War II the
Communist leaders said they wanted to be friends with the United States. I hoped we could continue to
be friends."
Varga: "The fact that the Soviet Union and the greatly
shaken capitalist countries showed themselves to be
in one powerful camp, raged against the Fascist
aggressors (during World War II), showed that the
struggle of the two systems within the democratic
camp was temporarily alleviated, suspended, but this
of, course does not mean the end of the struggle."6
Marshall Tito: "Our collaboration with capitalism
during the war which has recently ended, by no means
signifies that we shall prolong our alliance with it in the
future. On the contrary, the capitalistic forces
constitute our natural enemy despite the fact that they
helped us to defeat their most dangerous
representative. It may happen that we shall again
decide to make use of their aid, but always with the
sole aim of accelerating their final ruin."7
Student: "In other words, you pretended to be our
friends merely as a matter of expediency? Why would
it not be to our mutual advantage to continue being
Dimitry Z. Manuilsky: "War to the hilt between
communism and capitalism is inevitable."8
Student: "Then why do you even try to maintain
peaceful relations with the West?
Stalin: "We cannot forget the saying of Lenin to the
effect that a great deal ... depends on whether we
succeed in delaying war with the capitalist countries
... until proletarian revolution ripens in Europe or until
colonial revolutions come to a head, or, finally, until
the capitalists fight among themselves over the
division of the colonies. Therefore, the maintenance
of peaceful relations with capitalist countries is an
obligatory task for us."9
Student: "Do you think we should expect this
"inevitable" conflict soon or far in the distant future?"
Lenin: "To tie one's hands beforehand, openly to tell
the enemy, who is at present better armed than we
are, whether and when we will fight him, is stupidity
and not revolutionariness. To accept battle at a time when it is obviously advantageous to the enemy and
not to us is a crime; and those political leaders of the
revolutionary class who are unable to 'tack, to maneuver, to compromise' in order to avoid an
obviously disadvantageous battle, are good for
Student: "Perhaps this explains why you
Communists continue building up a tremendous war machine while proclaiming that you want peace. Don't
you think the West sincerely wants peace and would
like to disarm?"
Official Statement: "There is a glaring contradiction
between the imperialists' policy of piling up
armaments and their hypocritical talk about peace.
There is no such contradiction, however, between the
Soviet Government's preparation for defense and for
revolutionary war and a consistent peace policy. Revolutionary war of the proletarian dictatorship is but
a continuation of a revolutionary peace policy by other means."11
Student: "But would not a so-called revolutionary
peace policy by 'other means' simply be a demand for
unconditional surrender under threat of extermination?
Why do you perpetuate the myth of peaceful
coexistence when you openly consider the West your
Dimitry Z. Manuilsky: "Today, of course, we are not
strong enough to attack.... To win we shall need the
element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be
put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most
spectacular peace movement on record. There will be
electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions.
The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will
rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will
jump at another chance to be friends. As soon as their
guard is down, we shall smash them with our
clenched fist."12
Illegal Operations
Student: "Perhaps this helps to explain why the
Communist strategists have never been able to take
over a single country by persuasion or by the popular
election of legal candidates. Must you Communists
always resort to subversion and illegal political
Lenin: "The absolute necessity in principal of
combining illegal with legal work is determined not
only by the sum total of the specific features of the
present period ... but also by the necessity of proving
to the bourgeoisie that there is not, nor can there be,
a sphere or field of work that cannot be won by the Communists.... It is necessary, immediately, for all
legal Communist Parties to form illegal organizations
for the purpose of systematically carrying on illegal work, and of fully preparing for the moment when the
bourgeoisie resorts to persecution. Illegal work is
particularly necessary in the army, the navy and
Student: "What happens to a person who is selected
for illegal operations?"
Lenin: "A working class agitator who in any way
shows talent and promise should not work eleven
hours a day in a factory. We should see to it that he
lives on the funds of the Party, that he is able in good
time to adopt an illegal manner of existence, that he
has the opportunity of changing his sphere of
activities; otherwise he will not gain experience, he will not broaden his outlook, and will not be able to
hold out for at most several years in the struggle
against the police."14
Revolutionary Violence
Student: "Could an American who might be
converted to Communism belong to the Party but still
hold out for peaceful reform instead of revolutionary
Lenin: "It is not enough to take sides in the question
of political slogans; we must take sides also in the
question of an armed uprising. Those who are
opposed to armed uprising, those who do not
prepare for it, must be ruthlessly cast out of the ranks
of the supporters of the revolution and sent back to
the ranks of its enemies, of the traitors or cowards; for
the day is approaching when the force of events and
conditions of the struggle will compel us to separate
enemies from friends according to this principle."15
Student: "Then apparently you believe social
progress is possible only by revolutionary violence
rather than by legislative reform?"
Lenin: "Marxists have never forgotten that violence
will be an inevitable accompaniment of the collapse of
capitalism on its full scale and of the birth of a
socialist society. And this violence will cover a
historical period; a whole era of wars of the most
varied kinds -- imperialist wars, civil wars within the
country, the interweaving of the former with the latter,
national wars, the emancipation of the nationalities
crushed by the imperialist powers which will inevitably
form various alliances with each other in the era of
vast state-capitalist and military trusts and syndicates.
This is an era of tremendous collapses, of wholesale military decisions of a violent nature, of crises. It has
already begun, we see it clearly -- it is only the
Student: "Do you mean it is impossible for an
American to be a true Communist without betraying
his own country?"
Lenin: "Hatred for one's own government and one's
own bourgeoisie -- the sentiment of all class
conscious workers ... is a banal phrase if it does not mean revolution against their own governments. It is
impossible to rouse hatred against one's own
government and one's own bourgeoisie without
desiring their defeat."17
Student: "Would an American Communist be
expected to engage in subversive and disloyal
activities even if the United States were at war?"
Lenin: "A revolutionary class in a reactionary war
cannot but desire the defeat of its government.... And
revolutionary action in wartime against one's own
government undoubtedly and incontrovertibly means
not only desiring its defeat, but really facilitating such
Student: "But if you are so anxious to break down
loyalty to individual governments why you do insist on
American Communists maintaining a loyalty toward
the USSR?"
Official Statement: "In view of the fact that the USSR
is the only fatherland of the international proletariat,
the principle bulwark of its achievements and the most important factor for its international
emancipation, the international proletariat must on its
part facilitate the success of the work of socialist
construction in the USSR and defend it against the
attacks of the capitalist powers by all the means in its
Student: "In other words -- and to be more specific --
you are against nationalism except when applied to
the USSR?
P. E. Vyshinsky: "The defense of the USSR, as of
the socialist motherland of the world proletariat, is the
holy duty of every honest man everywhere and not only
of the citizens of the USSR."20
Student: "If American Communists are expected
overthrow their own Government and serve the
interests of the USSR, would that not make them
anarchists and insurrectionists?"
Lenin: "Only insurrection can guarantee the victory of
the revolution."21
Lenin: "The revolution confronts us directly with the
problem of armed insurrection. And to speak of this without proper technical preparations, is merely to mouth empty phrases. He who wants the revolution must systematically prepare for it the broad masses, which will, in the process of preparation, create the
necessary organs of the struggle."22
Student: "And all this for the violent overthrow of the Government?"
Lenin: "The purpose of insurrection must be not only
the complete destruction, or removal of all local
authorities and their replacement by new ... but also
the expulsion of the landlords and the seizure of their
War And Peace
Student: "Does not such an inflammatory policy
completely contradict your widely publicized program
for a peace offensive?"
Official Statement: "Complete Communism will
know no more war. A real, assured people's peace is
possible only under Communism. But the goal cannot
be reached by peaceful, 'pacifist' means; on the
contrary, it can be reached only by civil war against
the bourgeoisie."24
Student: "In other words, Communists in all countries
constitute a war party rather than a political party
designed to promote peace?"
Official Statement: "In the capitalist world today, the
revolutionary proletariat supports the war of defense
of the proletarian state (the USSR) against the
imperialist states."25
Student: "But the Soviet Union has consistently
waged or encouraged wars of aggression. How can
you conscientiously support these?"
Official Statement: "Every war of the Soviet Union is
a war of defense, even if it is conducted with offensive means."26
Student: "If you are going to call all Soviet wars
'defensive' even when you admit she is using
'offensive means' what will be your attitude toward
other nations which maintain heavy armaments simply
as a defense against Communist aggression?"
Official Statement: (We stand for the) "systematic
exposure and stigmatizing of all capitalist armaments, war pacts and war preparations and especially of the
defense of the Soviet Union against the league of the
Student: "Are the Communist leaders expecting a
spontaneous uprising in various countries or will they
order their followers to engineer an uprising?"
Lenin: "If the situation is ripe for a popular uprising, in
view of the fact that the revolution in social
relationships has already taken place, and if we have
prepared for it, we can order an uprising."28
Student: "What methods would you use to overthrow
the Government?"
Lenin: "Riots -- demonstrations -- street battles --
detachments of a revolutionary army -- such are the
stages in the development of the popular uprising."29
Student: "Based on experience, what are the most
ideal circumstances for a successful insurrection?"
Lenin: "Combining of a mass political strike with an
armed uprising."30
The Communist International
Student: "Originally, what did you say about the
organization which was supposed to run the world
Official Statement: "The Communist International is
the concentrated will of the world revolutionary
proletariat. Its mission is to organize the working
class of the world for the overthrow of the capitalist
system and the establishment of Communism. The
Communist International is a fighting body and
assumes the task of combining the revolutionary
forces of every country."31
Student: "Was the purpose of the Communist
International to spread dissension and build the Red
Official Statement: "In order to overthrow the
international bourgeoisie and to create an
International Soviet Republic as a transition stage to
the Communist Society, the Communist International will use all means at its disposal, including force of
Stalin: "The tasks of the Party in foreign policy are: 1
-- to utilize each and every contradiction and conflict
among the surrounding capitalist groups and
governments for the purpose of disintegrating
imperialism; 2 -- to spare no pains or means to
render assistance to the proletarian revolution in the West; 3 -- to take all necessary measures to
strengthen the Red Army."33
Student: "What was the program of the Communist
Official Statement: "The Communist International must devote itself especially to ... everyday
organization work ... in the course of which work legal methods must unfailingly be combined with illegal
methods; organized work in the army and navy -- such must be the activity of the Communist Parties in this
connection. The fundamental slogans of the Communist International in this connection must be
the following:
"Convert imperialist war into civil war;
"Defeat 'your own' imperialist government;
"Defend the USSR and the colonies by every means in the event of imperialist war against
Student: "Did the Communist International depend
upon Communist parties in various countries or did it
operate independently?"
Official Statement: "The successful struggle of the
Communist International for the dictatorship of the
proletariat presupposes the existence in every country
of a compact Communist Party hardened in the
struggle, disciplined, centralized, and closely linked to
the masses."35
Student: "What was the obligation of an organization
such as the Communist Party of America when it
affiliated with the Communist International?"
Official Statement: "Each party desirous of affiliating
to the Communist International should be obliged to
render every possible assistance to the Soviet
Republics in their struggle against all counterrevolutionary forces. The Communist parties should
carry on a precise and definite propaganda to induce
the workers to refuse to transport any kind of military
equipment intended for fighting against the Soviet
Republics, and should also by legal or illegal means
carry on a propaganda amongst the troops sent
against the workers' republics, etc."36
Student: "Was it intended from the beginning that
Communist leaders in Russia would dictate the
policies of the Communist Party of America?"
Earl Browder: "The Communist Parties of the
various countries are the direct representatives of the Communist International, and thus, indirectly of the
aims and policies of Soviet Russia."37
Official Statement: "Representatives of Soviet
Russia in various countries, engaging in political
activities, should co-ordinate these activities in some
form or other with the activities and policies of the
respective Communist Parties."38
Alexander Trachtenberg: "Consistently supporting
the Soviet Union since its inception, American Communists were acting as internationalists and as
Student: "In 1943 the Communist International was
suddenly dissolved. Was this designed to pacify a
rising wave of anti-Communist sentiments during
World War II?"
Hans Berger: "Since correct strategy consists in
uniting and concentrating all forces against the
common enemy, necessitating the elimination of
everything which makes such unification and
concentration difficult, therefore, the dissolution of the Communist International, decided upon unanimously
by the Communist Parties, was doubtless an act in
the interests of facilitating victory over the fascist
Student: "Did the dissolution of the Communist
International result in a weakening of the solidarity
between Communist Parties throughout the world?"
Hans Berger: "Among the reasons which the
leaders of the Communist Parties considered in
supporting the dissolution of the Communist
International was doubtless the question of
strengthening the Communist Parties."41
Student: "Did it weaken the plans for world
Hans Berger: "The Communist Parties have thus
never sacrificed their Marxist-Leninist principles,
which know no boundaries, and which can never be
given up by them, but guided by their principles fight
on with the utmost consistency."42
Student: "Would this represent the official view of the
Communist Party of America?"
Gil Green: "Since November, 1940, our Party has not
been an affiliate of the Communist International and
has had no organizational ties with it. But who can
deny that our Party has nonetheless fulfilled its
obligation to the American Working class and people
and in this way to the working class and people of the
"Nor is the further existence of the Communist
International necessary as the living embodiment of
the principle of internationalism and international working class solidarity. The fight for internationalism
has not disappeared. It has been raised to new and more glorious heights."44
"The dissolution of the Communist International does
not, therefore, mark a step backward.... Millions all
over the world live, work and fight under the bright
banner of Marxism." 45
Diplomatic Intrigue
Student: "During World War IIwhat did Stalin say the
Russian policy was toward nations which were then
under Nazi domination?"
Stalin: "We are waging a just war for our country and
our freedom. It is not our aim to seize foreign lands or
to subjugate foreign people. Our aim is clear and
noble. We want to free our Soviet land of the GermanFascist scoundrels. We want to free our Ukrainian, Moldavian, Byelorussian, Lithuanian, Latvian,
Estonian and Karelian brothers from the outrage and
violence to which they are being subjected by the German-Fascist scoundrels....
"We have not and cannot have such war aims as the
imposition of our will and regime on the slavs and
other enslaved peoples of Europe who are awaiting
our aid. Our aim consists in assisting these people in
their struggle for liberation from Hitler's tyranny and
then setting them free to rule in their own lands as they
Student: "What excuse could Stalin and the
Communist leaders have for doing the very opposite
of what they had promised?"
Lenin: "The strictest loyalty to the ideas of
Communism must be combined with the ability to make all necessary practical compromises, to maneuver, to make agreements, zigzags, retreats
and so on, so as to accelerate the coming to
Stalin: "Sincere diplomacy is no more possible than
dry water or iron wood."48
Ethics and Morals
Student: "Doesn't this approach to international
relations sound more like a criminal code of conduct
rather than sincere diplomacy? Does Communist
Morality permit this?"
Lenin: "We say: Morality is that which serves to
destroy the old exploiting society and to unite all the
toilers around the proletariat, which is creating a new
Communist society. Communist morality is the morality which serves this struggle...."49
Official Statement: "Morals or ethics is the body of
norms and rules on the conduct of Soviet peoples. At
the root of Communist morality, said Lenin, lays the
struggle for the consolidation and the completion of
Communism. Therefore, from the point of view of
Communist morality, only those acts are moral which
contribute to the building up of a new Communist
Student: "But this sounds like an excuse for doing
whatever one may find expedient rather than following
a system of rules for right living. Assuming
Communism was right; would that justify a communist
in lying, stealing or killing to put Communism into
William Z. Foster: "With him the end justifies the means. Whether his tactics be 'legal' and 'moral,' or
not, does not concern him, so long as they are
effective. He knows that the laws as well as the
current code of morals are made by his mortal
enemies.... Consequently, he ignores them in so far
as he is able and it suits his purposes. He proposes
to develop, regardless of capitalist conceptions of
'legality,' 'fairness,' 'right,' etc., a greater power than
his capitalist enemies have."51
Student: "Would you then deny the possibility of
there being an eternal, God-given code for moral or
ethical conduct?"
Lenin: "We do not believe in eternal morality, and we
expose all the fables about morality."52
Marx: "Law, morality, religion are ... so many
bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush
just as many bourgeois interests."53
Engels: "We therefore reject every attempt to
impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an
eternal, ultimate and forever immutable moral law on
the pretext that the moral world too has its permanent
principles which transcend history and the difference
between nations. We maintain on the contrary that all
former moral theories are the product, in the last
analysis, of the economic stage which society had
reached at that particular epoch. And as society has
hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality was
always a class morality; it has either justified the
domination and the interests of the ruling class, or, as
soon as the oppressed class has become powerful
enough, it has represented the revolt against this
domination and the future interests of the
The Bible
Student: "Then what is the Communist attitude
toward the Bible which contains many moral
Official Statement: "A collection of fantastic legends
without any scientific support. It is full of dark hints,
historical mistakes and contradictions. It serves as a
factor for gaining power and subjugating the
unknowing nations."55
Engels: "It is now perfectly clear to me that the socalled sacred writings of the Jews are nothing more
than the record of the old Arabian religious and tribal
tradition, modified by the early separation of the Jews
from their tribally related but nomadic neighbours."56
Student: "If you reject the Bible, do you also reject all
religion and all of the institutionalized morality which it
Official Statement: "The philosophy of MarxismLeninism -- the theoretical foundation of the
Communist Party -- is incompatible with religion."57
Lenin: "Religion is a kind of spiritual gin in which the
slaves of capital drown their human shape and their
claims to any decent human life."58
Student: "Could not a Communist enjoy religious
activity as a matter of conscience and as a private
Lenin: "To the party of the Socialist proletariat ...
religion is not a private matter."59
Yaroslavsky: "Every Leninist, every Communist,
every class-conscious worker and peasant must be
able to explain why a Communist cannot support
religion [and] why Communists fight against
Student: "But supposing I were a Communist and
still wanted to go to Church?"
Official Statement: "If a Communist youth believes in God and goes to Church, he fails to fulfil his duties.
This means that he has not yet rid himself of religious
superstitions and has not become a fully conscious
person (i.e., a Communist)."61
Lenin: "A young man or woman cannot be a
Communist youth unless he or she is free of religious
Lenin: "We must combat religion -- this is the ABC of
all materialism, and consequently Marxism."63
Student: "What is your attitude toward individual
churches? Take the Catholic Church, for example."
Yaroslavsky: "The Catholic Church, with the pope in
its van, is now an important bulwark of all counterrevolutionary organizations and forces."64
Student: Are you against all Christianity?"
Lunarcharsky: (Russian Commissioner of
Education): "We hate Christians and Christianity.
Even the best of them must be considered our worst
enemies. Christian love is an obstacle to the
development of the revolution. Down with love of one's
neighbor! What we want is hate.... Only then can we
conquer the universe."65
Student: "How do you justify Communist 'hate'
propaganda of this kind?"
Official Statement: "Hatred fosters vigilance and an
uncompromising attitude toward the enemy and leads
to the destruction of everything that prevents Soviet
peoples from building a happy life. The teaching of
hatred for the enemies of the toilers enriches the
conception of Socialist humanism by distinguishing it
from sugary and hypocritical 'philanthropy.'"66
Stalin: "It is impossible to conquer an enemy without
having learned to hate him with all the might of one's
Student: "And what is your attitude toward the
Jewish people and their religion?"
Marx: "What was the foundation of the Jewish
religion? Practical needs egoism. Consequently the monotheism of the Jew is in reality the Polytheism of many needs.... The God of practical needs and
egoism is money.... Money is the jealous God of
Israel, by the side of which no other God may exist....
The God of the Jews has secularized himself and
become the universal God.... As soon as society
succeeds in abolishing the empirical essence of
Judaism, the huckster and the conditions which
produce him, the Jew will become impossible.... The
social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of
society from Judaism."68
Student: "In view of all this, why is it that Communist
propaganda sometimes pretends a tolerance for
Yaroslavsky: "In our work among religious people
we must bear in mind Lenin's advice to utilize every method available to us, or, as he said, we must
'approach them this way and that way' in order to
stimulate them to criticize religion themselves."69
Student: "If religion is so bad, do you think it will
gradually die out?"
Yaroslavsky: "It would be a great mistake to believe
that religion will die out of itself. We have repeatedly
emphasized Lenin's opinion that the Communist Party
cannot depend upon the spontaneous development of
anti-religious ideas -- that these ideas are molded by
organized action."70
Student: "Do you think a person's attitude toward
religion should be changed by friendly persuasion?"
Lenin: "The fight against religion must not be limited
nor reduced to abstract, ideological preaching. This
struggle must be linked up with the concrete practical
class movement; its aim must be to eliminate the
social roots of religion."71
Official Statement: "The struggle against the Gospel
and Christian legend must be conducted ruthlessly
and with all the means at the disposal of
Student: "Is it true that you have already suppressed
the clergy in Russia?"
Stalin: "Have we suppressed the reactionary clergy?
Yes, we have. The unfortunate thing is that it has not
been completely liquidated. Anti-religious
propaganda is a means by which the complete
liquidation of the reactionary clergy must be brought
about. Cases occur when certain members of the
Party hamper the complete development of antireligious propaganda. If such members are expelled it
is a good thing because there is no room for such
'Communists' in the ranks of the Party."73
Student: "What do you propose to substitute for
Lenin: "We said at the beginning ... Marxism cannot
be conceived without atheism. We would add here
that atheism without Marxism is incomplete and
Student: "If you are going to take away the concept
of God, what spiritual substitute do you propose to
offer your people?"
Official Statement: "What better means of
influencing pupils than, for example, the characteristic
of the spiritual figure of Stalin given in the Short
Biography: 'Everyone knows the irresistible,
shattering power of Stalin's logic, the crystal
clearness of his intellect, his iron will, devotion to the
party, his modesty, artlessness, his solicitude for
people and mercilessness to enemies of the
Student: "I understand Soviet leaders missed no
opportunity when Stalin was alive to indoctrinate the
children with the idea of Stalin as a spiritual figure. What was the slogan stamped on children's toys?"
Official Statement: "Thank you, Comrade Stalin, for my joyous childhood."76
Individual Freedom and Civil
Student: "Is there any opportunity for freedom and
democracy under Communism?"
Engels: "We say: 'A la guerre comme a la guerre';
we do not promise freedom nor any democracy."77
Student: "Then you do not believe that men should
be free and equal in the enjoyment of life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness?"
Engels: "As long as classes exist, all arguments
about freedom and equality should be accompanied
by the question: Freedom for which class? And for what purpose? The equality of which class with
which? And in what relation?"78
Student: "But is it not your desire to have freedom
and equality for all classes?"
Engels: "We do not want freedom for the
Student: "Do not the people in Communist satellites
want freedom and equality for their citizens?"
Engels: "Anyone who talks about freedom and
equality within the limits of toiler democracy, i.e.,
conditions under which the capitalists are overthrown while property and free trade remain -- is a defender
of the exploiters."80
Student: "Do you believe in freedom at all?"
Lenin: "While the state exists there is no freedom. When freedom exists, there will be no state."81
Student: "But the USSR still preserves the State.
Does this mean the government of Russia is not
intended to promote the freedom of the Russian
Engels: "So long as the proletariat still uses the state
it does not use it in the interest of freedom but in order
to hold down its adversaries."82
Student: "Then do I conclude from this that in Russia
you do not even pretend to has the civil liberties which we enjoy over here?"
Vyshinsky: "In our state, naturally there is and can
be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on
for the foes of socialism. Every sort of attempt on their
part to utilize to the detriment of the state, that is to
say, to the detriment of all the toilers -- these
freedoms granted to the toilers, must be classified as
a counter-revolutionary crime."83
Student: "Supposing I were living in Russia and
wanted to publish a newspaper which criticized the
government. Would I be granted the same freedom of
press which I enjoy in America?"
Stalin: "What freedoms of the press have you in mind? Freedom of the press for which class-- the
bourgeoisie or the proletariat? If it is a question of
freedom of the press for the bourgeoisie, then it does
not and will not exist here as long as the proletarian
dictatorship exists."84
Student: "Then you mean freedom of the press is
only for the privileged proletariat? It would not include
a person like myself?"
Stalin: "We have no freedom of the press for the
bourgeoisie. We have no freedom of the press for the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, who
represent the interests of the beaten and overthrown
bourgeoisie. But what is there surprising in that? We
have never pledged ourselves to grant freedom of the
press to all classes, and to make all classes
Student: "But how can a government fairly
administer its laws unless they apply equally to all the
Lenin: "Dictatorship is power based upon force and
unrestricted by any laws. The revolutionary
dictatorship of the proletariat is power won and maintained by the violence of the proletariat against
the bourgeoisie -- power that is unrestricted by any
Student: "But if laws are against classes rather than
violators, how can there be any justice?"
Vyshinsky: "The task of justice in the USSR is to
assure the precise and unswerving fulfillment of
Soviet laws by all the institutions, organizations,
officials and citizens of the USSR. This the court
accomplishes by destroying without pity all the foes of
the people in whatever form they manifest their
criminal encroachments upon socialism."87
MoscowUniversity-- where education is often used as a political
tool and professors are among the best paid people in the U.S.S.R.
Student: "Let me ask a few questions about Soviet
schools and the Communist theory of education. How
would you describe the objectives of education in Russia?"
Official Statement: "It is in the schools, at the desk,
in the first class, that the foundations for a Communist
outlook are laid in future Soviet citizens. The country
entrusts the school with its most treasured
possessions -- its children -- and no one should be
allowed to indulge in the slightest deviation from the
principles of the Communist materialistic upbringing
of the new generation."88
Student: "Would it not be better to give students a
broad view of all governments and different
economies so they could draw their own
Official Statement: "The Soviet school cannot be
satisfied to rear merely educated persons. Basing
itself on the facts and deductions of progressive
science, it should instill the ideology of Communism in
the minds of the young generation, shape a MarxistLeninist world outlook and inculcate the spirit of
Soviet patriotism and Bolshevik ideas in them."89
Student: "Is it fair to force the minds of the rising
generation to accept only the values which a current
political regime wishes to impose upon them?"
Official Statement: "It is important that pupils should
clearly realize the doom of the capitalistic world, its
inevitable downfall, that they should see on the other
hand the great prospects of our socialist system, and
actively get prepared when they leave school to be
ready to take their place in life, in the struggle for a
new world, for Communism."90
Student: "Since Communism claims to represent the
interests of the laboring class, what is the official
Communist attitude toward the labor movement?"
Lenin: "It will be necessary ... to agree to any and
every sacrifice, and even -- if need be -- to resort to all
sorts of devices, maneuvers and illegal methods, to
evasion and subterfuge, in order to penetrate into the
trade unions, to remain in them, and to carry on
Communist work in them at all costs."91
Student: "I think the average American working man
would be interested in knowing what the Communists
do when they control a labor union. How do the Communists treat labor unions in Russia where they
have complete control?"
Victor Kravchenko (Former Government Official
now defected): "The local (Communist) party
organization elects one of its suitable members to
become president of the trade union. Generally
speaking, the Soviet trade unions have to see that the
workers execute the program."92
Student: "But does that not make the union a
subservient arm of government rather than an
organization of workers? What if a nation wanted to
Kravchenko: "The union's job is to see that strict
discipline is maintained, that there will be no strikes
that the workers work for wages established by the
central government that the workers carry out all the
decisions, resolutions. et cetera, of the party."93
Student: "But what would happen if I were a worker
in Russia and wanted to quit my job?"
Kravchenko: "Every citizen in the Soviet Union has
a passport. On the passport is his photograph. There
is also a special page on which a stamp is put which
indicates the place, date and type of employment. If
you leave your job in one factory and go to another without the permission of your director you will be
prosecuted under the law for violation of the law
prohibiting unauthorized change of employment. This
refers not only to laborers but to any kind of
Student: "In view of these statements I would like to
conclude with one more question: Is this the hope for
humanity which the Soviet offers the world?"
Official Statement: "The Soviet is an inspiring
example for the proletarian revolution in the rest of the world.... (It) shows the powerful achievements of the
victorious proletariat and the vast superiority of
Socialist to Capitalist economy. The Soviet Union is
an inspiring example for the national selfdetermination of the oppressed peoples."95
1. V.I. Lenin, Report of the Central Committee At the 8th Party Congress, 1919.
2. Thesis of the Sixth World Congress of the Communist
International, International Press Correspondence, November
28, 1926, p. 1590.
3.Quoted byJoseph Stalin in, Leninism, Volume I, p. 170.
4. Joseph Stalin's letter to Ivanov, p. 9. See also Resolution of
the Fourteenth Party Conference of the Communist Party of
the SovietUnion.
5. P.E. Vyshinsky, "Communism and the Motherland," in Voprosi Filosofi, Problems of Philosophy, Vol. 2, 1948.
6. Varga, World Economy and World Politics, June 1949, p.
7. Reported by the Continental News Service, November 8,
1946, and quoted in Communist Threat To Canada, Ottawa,
1947, pp. 10-11.
8. Stated in a lecture to the Lenin School on Political Warfare
in Moscow, 1931.
9. Joseph Stalin, "Speech to the 15th Congress of the Soviet," Selected Works, Vol. X, pp. 95-96; also see pp. 100-101.
10. V.I. Lenin, "Left-wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder," Selected Works, Vol. X, pp. 95-96; also see pp. 100-101.
11. Thesis of the Sixth World Congress of the Communist
International, International Press Correspondence, November
28, 1928, p. 1590.
12. Stated in a lecture at the Lenin School on Political Warfare
in Moscow, 1931.
13. V.I. Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. X, pp. 172-173.
14. V.I. Lenin, LeninOnOrganization, p. 95.
15. V.I. Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 351.
16. V.I. Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. VIII, pp. 315-316.
17. V.I. Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. V, p. 147.
18. V.I. Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. V, p. 142.
19. Program of the Communist International, p. 66.
20. P.E. Vyshinsky, "Communism and the Motherland," in Problems in Philosophy, Vol. 2, 1948.
21. V.I. Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 327.
22. Lenin, TheGreat Strategist of the Class War, p. 17.
23. V.I. Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 377.
Results of 175 Years of American
The encouragement of private initiative and selfdetermination and the protection of the individual
citizen from the encroachment of man-made systems
have now had 175 years to prove themselves. Did the
liberation of the citizen from the systems of the past
prove beneficial?
The United States, like all new countries, started poor
in capital and badly in debt. Although other nations
have often had equal access to natural resources, the United States slowly but consistently forged ahead.
Today, with only 7 percent of the world's population
and 6 percent of the earth's territory, the United States
has acquired through peaceful industry nearly 50
percent of the world's developed wealth. Each year its
citizens grow, build, sell, buy and use more goods
and services than any other country in existence.
With a population of 180 million (1962) the U.S. has
succeeded in approaching the economists' dream of
total employment by providing jobs for 63 people while approximately 37 million of its youth been
enrolled in school. Each year the people of the United
States spend more than 200 billion dollars on
personal goods and services. This means a per
capita income of $1,453 which is twice the per capita
income in Britain, five times the per capita income in Russia, and seven times the per capita income in
According to the American Automobile Association,
the people of the United States spend more than 9
billion dollars vacations each year. Individual savings
amount to 17 billion dollars annually, and 3 out of 4
families are covered by life insurance. Of the 50 million dwelling units in the nation, 60 percent are
occupied by their owners. The millions of acres of
developed farm land produce more food than its
citizens can eat. The productive capacity of the United
States is the largest in the world. It owns 30 percent of
the world's railroad mileage, 76 percent of its
automobiles, 51 percent of its trucks, 47 percent of its
radios, 42 percent of the electric power output, and
47 percent of its steel.
Each year the United States produces 51 percent of
the world's output of petroleum and about 30 percent
of its coal. The U.S. merchant fleets have replaced
Britain's as the rulers of the seas with the greatest
volume of foreign trade.1
The Pattern for Abundant Living
World travelers or people who have lived abroad can
appreciate the abundant living of the United States
better than the average American. The table on the
opposite page illustrates how little time it takes an
American citizen to earn the necessities of life and why he is able to spend so much of his income on
travel and items of commerce which foreign citizens would call luxuries. This table shows how many minutes the average citizen of leading countries must
work to pay for one pound of the various items listed.2
TABLE: Minutes of Work Required In
Various Countries
To Earn One Pound of Food
Food U.S. France Germany Ireland Italy Norway Sweden Russia
1 lb. Wheat
Flour 4 20 15 6 15 6 18 27
1 lb. Macaroni 8 20 17 45
1 lb. Rice 6 33 17 17 16 91
1 lb. Bread 6 9 12 8 13 7 7 14
1 lb. Beef 31 126 72 128 58 132
1 lb. Pork
Chops 32 91 87 68 124 59 97 220
1 lb. Veal 48 120 94 48 100
1 lb. Leg of
31 133 76 61 85 140
1 lb. Fish 18 33 31 42 55 18 135
1 lb. Butter 30 135 150 83 162 63 115 270
1 lb. Cheese 22 140 60 109 38 35
1 lb. Fresh
Milk 8 16 15 16 20 9 12 42
1 lb. Eggs 32 118 125 109 126 82 97 187
1 lb. Fresh
Apples 4 19 16 9 89
1 lb. Cabbage 2 7 5 6 37
1 lb. Carrots 5 9 8 12 7 9
1 lb. Potatoes 2 3 3 5 5 3 4 9
1 lb. Oleomargarine
13 64 39 55 19 152
1 lb. Sugar 4 21 21 9 37 7 14 110
In this list the statistics for potatoes may be used as
an illustration of what has been happening in the world. Russia, for example, produces more potatoes
than any other country in the world, but a Russian must work four times as long as an American to buy one
pound of potatoes. And observe that a Russian must work twenty-seven times as long as an American to
buy one pound of sugar; twelve times as long as an
American to buy one pound of oleomargarine. In the United States by 1951 there were 105 million radios.
It took the average citizen 1 day and 2 hours to earn
enough money to buy an average radio. In France it
requires 7 1/2 days of toil to pay for an average radio,
in Italy 15 days, in Russia 27 days.3
In the United States there are 201,277 physicians,
87,000 dentists and 1,439,030 hospital beds. The life
expectancy in the United States is 65.9 years for males and 71.5 years for females. In Russia the last
life expectancy tables show the average to be 41.9
years for males and 46.8 years for females.4
Certain foreign propaganda agents have tried to
depict U.S. wealth as a fortuitous gift of nature.
Economists have pointed out that many foreign
nations have equal access to resources and could
duplicate the wealth of the United States if they were willing to accept the principles of government and
economics which make the development of such wealth possible. Propaganda agents have insisted
that since the United States has become remarkably wealthy it should divide that wealth with the rest of the
poverty-stricken world. Economists have answered
this by pointing out that what America has to share with the world is not so much her wealth as her timetested system of government and economics.
If America's wealth were spread around the world it would soon be dissipated, but if her system of free
government and free enterprise were spread around
the world, nations would soon find them to be
perpetual producers of wealth. What foreign nations
envy in America is the fruition of 175 years of true
1. Statistics taken from the 1954 Information Almanac
published bythe MacMillan Co.,NewYork, p. 80.
2. Statistics taken from U.S. Bureau of Labor and quoted in
the 1954 Information Almanac, p. 130.
3. 1954 Information Almanac, p. 80.
4. StatisticalAbstract of the USA-- 1952, published bythe U.S. Department ofCommerce, pp. 946-960.
Appendix C
What is Free Enterprise Capitalism?
Marx made his most damaging mistake while
drawing up the blueprints for a Communist society by
designing them for a creature which never existed. He misinterpreted the nature of man. Since then, the Communists have expended vast quantities of
strategy and energy trying to change the instinctive
desires of man, but this has proven impossible.
Marx likewise miscalculated while attempting to
analyze free enterprise capitalism. His prophecies
concerning its unavoidable collapse failed to materialize. In fact, the very opposite occurred. While
nations which toyed with Socialism and Communism
progressed slowly, stood still or slid backwards, Capitalism rolled steadily on.
Two things in particular have made modern Capitalism increasingly successful. First, its capacity
to satisfy the inherent needs and desires of man, and
second, its capacity to function efficiently with very
little guidance or supervision. It is sometimes called a
natural system of economics because it tends to
adjust automatically to human requirements.
Nevertheless, being a child of nature, Capitalism
contains a certain spirit of the jungle when observed
in its wild, uncultivated state where men have used it
for selfish, individual survival. However, under
domestication and tempered with the ingredient of
good will toward men, Capitalism has proven to be man's most efficient device for the developing of material wealth and for general social advancement;
in other words, for community survival.
In order to appreciate the natural qualities of
Capitalism which have proven beneficial to mankind, we should first ask ourselves, "What is the nature of man? What are his desires and needs?"
The Nature of Man
Under careful scrutiny, man turns out to be a physicalspiritual being. To ignore either facet of his nature would be as fatal for us at it was for Marx.
On the physical side, we observe that man is an
elaborate and complex organism with a capacity to
register and react to sensations ranging from
excruciating pain to ecstatic pleasure. Bradford B.
Smith calls this man's pain-pleasure scale. A vast
array of human needs grow out of man's desire to
avoid pain or discomfort and achieve physical
satisfaction and pleasure from life. Some of these would be:
Satisfying hunger
Quenching thirst
Satisfying tastes
Being warm in cold weather, cool in warm weather
Avoiding illness
Being relieved of pain Having comfortable and attractive clothes Having a comfortable home and surroundings
Enjoying perfumes and pleasant odors Hearing pleasant sounds
Enjoying relaxation and recreation
Participating in marital associations
Enjoying the sensation of movement and travel
Seeing colorful objects or colorful scenery
Now let us take a moment to consider the other half of man's nature -- the spiritual side. This is sometimes
called man's fear-hope scale. Man, as an intelligent,
self-knowing, self-determining being, is capable of
having strong feelings ranging all the way from
sublime hope to deep fear and despair, Sometimes
these are closely related to physical needs and
frustrations; sometimes they are purely intellectual.
But regardless of their origin, they are very real and
result in a wide pattern of intellectual or spiritual
To be of individual importance so as to count for
something as a person.
To be a party in interest -- to be identified with the
To enjoy owning "things."
To be appreciated for some unique and important
To have a satisfactory degree of economic security.
To feel the satisfaction of sacrificing or risking
something to achieve progress. (This is sometimes
erroneously called the "gambling" instinct.)
To have the opportunity for creativity.
To feel family solidarity.
To enjoy the right of privacy.
To have freedom of expression in matters of opinion.
To be protected in convictions of religion and
To feel significant in determining matters of political
Man's Mainspring of Action
In studying the nature of man it soon becomes
apparent that his "mainspring of action" is the driving
necessity to satisfy both physical and spiritual needs. Many economic systems which men have invented
tend to smother or ignore these needs. To that same
extent these systems are bound to smother man's
greatest source of motivating power -- the anxiety to
satisfy these deep, throbbing human desires.
Forty years of Communism in the USSR have
eloquently confirmed this. The Communist leaders
have suppressed the natural desires of their people
and have tried to motivate them to action through fear.
But this has not worked because fear is primarily a
depressant instead of a stimulant. On the long pull it
becomes a dull, paralyzing drug affecting both brain
and muscle, and leaves a smoldering ash of
combustible hostility. "Work through fear" can never
compete successfully with the tantalizing opportunity
provided by Capitalism to constantly satisfy natural
human needs. Satisfying these needs is almost the
entire source of power for Capitalism's productive
Of course, if human beings made an attempt to rush
around in breathless haste trying to satisfy all of these
desires to their utmost, they would probably die in
their early youth. Therefore Providence has endowed
each human being with a built-in reactor against
speed which serves to prevent or discourage overindulgence. It is called "inertia." As each person feels
an inward desire to satisfy some physical need, he
simultaneously feels the strong gravitational pull of
laziness or inertia. Thereby hangs an important
principle of economics: "Man ever tends to satisfy his wants with the least possible exertion."
Perhaps we should mention in passing that capitalism
gives full vent to this principle by encouraging men to
continually seek cheaper sources of power and try to
develop more efficient machines to do the world's work instead of using human and animal muscle.
Even as late as 1900 over 50 percent of U.S. power was provided by animals and men, but under a half
century of capitalistic development they now supply
only 2 percent of the power. The rest comes from
machines. Other political and economic systems
claim to be in favor of mechanization, but no other
system is able to promote technological development
as rapidly as capitalism because competitive survival
becomes so important that it makes it worthwhile to
throw away machines as soon as they become
obsolete, also to discard outmoded sources of
power. Mechanization on American farms came
about through economic necessity while mechanization on socialized farms is looked upon as
desirable but not particularly necessary.
The Law of Variation
The genius of Capitalism is not merely that it satisfies
the desires and needs of mankind generally, but it
responds to the factor of variation as between
individuals. It allows each man to do anything he wishes so long as he can survive at it. Therefore each man continually surveys the field of economic
opportunity and gradually tries to push him into that
phase of work which best satisfies him.
This is one of the greatest blessings of free enterprise Capitalism. To a remarkable extent it allows a man to
do just about whatever he wants to do. Laborers are
not conscripted nor told they cannot strike; nor are
they ordered to remain in certain occupations as
tends to be the case in socialized and communized
Under Capitalism Everyone Can
A study of human nature reveals that "value" is
psychological rather than real. Whether a thing is
"worth" a certain amount depends entirely on the mental value attached to it. Capitalism has proven to
be a dynamic economy in which everyone
participating in a transaction can increase the value of
what he has, or, in other words, make a profit. This
can be true of both the buyer and the seller. For
example, take a man who wants to buy a used car. He
has a certain amount of money or credit. When he
offers this money to the dealer it means that he would
rather have the car than that amount of money -- the
"value" of the car is greater to him than the "value" of
the money. If the dealer agrees it means that the
dealer would rather have the money than the car. In
fact, he won't sell the car unless the price he gets is of
greater value to him than the value of the car. As the
car is driven away, both men have made a profit. Both men feel they have improved their position as a result
of the transaction.
This is a strong contributing factor to the success of
Capitalistic free enterprise. It allows everyone to win,
either by making a profit or by improving his position
as the result of an honest transaction.
The Meaning of a Free Economy
Capitalism thrives best in a free economy but
freedom is a much misunderstood subject. For
example, there is no such thing as total, unrestricted
freedom. Freedom means simply the chance to
choose. Therefore freedom can only relate itself to
specific choices such as the freedom to speak or not
to speak, the freedom to believe or not believe, the
freedom to buy or not to buy, and so forth.
Furthermore, freedom can move in only one direction
at a time. If a man has ten dollars and chooses to
spend it on a night of celebration he has thereby lost
the freedom to spend that same ten dollars on some
new clothes. Once the choice is made, a person is
not free to avoid the consequences of that choice.
That is why we say there is no such thing as
unrestricted freedom, or freedom in general.
Freedom is always restricted to some specific choice
and freedom is always restricted to choosing one
direction at a time.
It is for this reason that a free economy requires a
continuous education of its people so that they will
exercise their "freedom to choose" in such a way that
it will sustain sound moral principles and build a
dynamic economy with a strong social structure to
preserve it. In making such choices, the people must
sense what is best for both the individual and the
community. They must be well informed. They must
know enough about each problem so they can
anticipate what the result will be when they have made
their choice.
There are many notable examples in both modern
and ancient history to illustrate what happens when
people are only casually concerned with their right to make a choice or exercise their freedom. Free
peoples require alert, aggressive leadership and a
socially and politically conscious citizenry. This is not
easily maintained, but it is the price of freedom.
Sometimes the streak of natural laziness in people makes them wish that a commission, a dictator or a
king would make all the decisions and force the
people to do what is good for them. But this is the
road to ruin for a free economy. The people must
retain the sovereign right to choose, for that is all
freedom is.
Now we come to the four great freedoms which must
always exist in a truly free economy.
First -- Freedom to Try
One of the most essential ingredients in a healthy
economy is the freedom to try. This is really the
freedom to achieve and it is based on the principle
that "the genius of one or a few men cannot begin to
compare in the aggregate to the genius of all the
Therefore, in a free country a man can develop a new
kind of shorthand, a different kind of screwdriver, a
new breed of cattle, or an improved type of mousetrap. When he is through, no one may wish to
buy the new product or service, but at least he is free
to invent it and try to sell it if he can. This is an in
indispensable characteristic of Capitalism -- the
freedom to try.
One of the reasons atomic energy was shared with
the people for peacetime development was because
Americans have been educated to believe that this is
the best way to harness atomic power for a vast multitude of domestic services. With many thousands
of scientists working on ways and means to exploit
atomic power -- instead of using just a few hundred --
the results should be correspondingly greater. This is
particularly true where each of the scientists is free to
try anything his inventive genius may dictate.
This was precisely the way we developed radio,
television, the prevention of polio, the wonders of the modern automobile and the sound-barrier-breaking
speed of the propeller-less jets. By way of contrast, it
is interesting to note that the providing of an adequate
road system was reserved to the State and Federal
Governments. Notice that this monopolized program
has never come up to the public needs at any time in
our history. It is interesting to consider what might
have happened if highways had been left in the open market where businessmen could compete for the
opportunity of serving the public with adequate
systems of highway facilities. In fact, during recent
years there have been several places where toll roads
have been built by private capital with the permission
of state legislatures because the people were so
dissatisfied with the inefficiency of government
supervised thoroughfares.
Second -- Freedom to Sell
If men are to be left free to try their skill and inventive
genius they must also be protected in their freedom to
sell their product for a profit. Of course, some new
product might make a whole industry obsolete,
temporarily throw thousands out of work and require
numerous economic, social and political
readjustments. But this is one of the keys to success
in free enterprise economy. It must not be curbed
except in the case of products or procedures which
involve an immoral or criminal aspect, such as
narcotics, pornographic literature, quack medicines,
fake stocks, and so forth.
Freedom to sell also implies the freedom to make a
profit even if the price of a product is set at a level which wipes out the profit of a competitor. At first
glance this may seem to be a cold, heartless system
of economics, but if an American travels abroad
through Communist or Socialist countries he begins
to appreciate that "Freedom to Sell" is really the
opportunity to survive. This means that a competitor must exert his faculties to produce more efficiently
and reduce his price, or improve the quality of his
product, so that the public will pay the difference to
Set it. In either case, the public benefits, and newly
improved forms of material wealth are created for the
use of the public simply because two or more
companies are competing briskly in order to surviv
Now it was Nietzsche's thinking which inspired Adolf
Hitler with his apocalyptic nightmare of total war. Hitler
envisioned himself as the man of destiny -- the
superman -- who would one day rule the world. When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf it was as though Nietzsche were speaking from the dead. Said Hitler, "Look at
these young men and boys! What material! I shall
eradicate the thousands of years of human
domestication. Brutal youth -- that is what I am after....
Iwant to see once more in its eyes the gleam ... of the
beast of prey. With these I can make a new world ...
and create a new order!"
Mankind felt the crushing, brutal impact of Hitler's mammoth war machine during World War II as he
forced millions to join his ranks of imperialistic
conquest which was designed to make him dictator of
the world. In this country we watched in amazement as
he rose to power. Finally, after several years of
seeing the black boots of National Socialism stomp
out the light of civilization wherever they marched, we
rose up in our wrath and joined forces with other
nations of the world to smash Nietzsche-inspired
However, the spirit of total war which was spawned by
the materialists was not confined to the National
Socialists in Germany. It had been projected into the
ambitions and philosophies of the leaders of several
nations. It was codified into the political aims of the military leaders of Japan and Italy who also collapsed
under the mighty blow which struck down National
However, with the ending of World War II, many
people felt that the conflict with materialism was at an
end. Almost immediately the spirit of sacrifice
seemed to wither within us. Virtually overnight our
armies were demobilized, the world's largest air force was practically scrapped, and the world's largest navy was put into mothballs. All this was on the
presumption that the war with materialism was
finished. Time, of course, proved this presumption to
be a mistake.
In putting down National Socialism and the Axis we
had only conquered one form of materialism. Another
form, equally strong, immediately rose to take its
place. This new form of materialism came from
Nietzsche's comrade-in-arms -- Karl Marx -- a man
out of the same school of philosophy, with the same motivations as Nietzsche. Karl Marx thought of himself
as the father of dialectical materialism, more
commonly known as Communism. Today, the great
force of conquest and imperialism which he
envisioned stands arrayed against the people of the
free world and marches under the banner of the
hammer and sickle.
What Was the Mission of Karl Marx?
Some people have mistaken the mission of Karl Marx
and his followers as purely economic in nature, but
like all other materialists their mission was to gain
power through ideological warfare. Note how they
denounced any competitive ideology, even religion:
"We must combat religion -- this is the ABC of materialism, and consequently of Marxism."1 And
another disciple declared that when they took over,
"God will be banished from the laboratories as well as
from the schools."2
Now since we are dealing with the field of ideological warfare, one might well ask, What is the objective of
these militant atheists? What are they trying to set up
as the new ideal for human relations? Listen to the words of Lenin:
"We must hate-hatred is the basis of Communism. Children must be taught to hate their parents if they
are not Communists." And listen to the amazing
declaration of the former Russian Commissar of
Education, Anatole Lunarcharsky: "We hate Christians and Christianity. Even the best of them
must be considered our worst enemies. Christian love
is an obstacle to the development of the revolution. Down with love of one's neighbor! What we want is
hate.... Only then will we conquer the universe!"3
I am sure you would agree that when men like these
rise to positions of power in the earth it is indeed a
challenge to the youth of the free world. When Karl
Marx was asked what his object in life was, he said,
"To dethrone God and destroy capitalism!"
In a declared war against morals, ethics, and spiritual
values among the people, Marx and his associates
resolved to completely eliminate the worship of the
Almighty among men. Heinrich Heine declared: "Our
hearts are filled with compassion for it is ... Jehovah
Himself who is making ready to die,"4 and Nietzsche,
so successful in the atheistic campaign, said: let the
"death of God" be boldly proclaimed.5 Ludwig Feuerbach announced that: "The turning point of history will
be the moment man becomes aware that the only
God of man is man himself."6
Pirates of Science and Religion
The strategy of the materialists was to appropriate to
themselves the toga of "science" and take credit for
all scientific accomplishments. Then they determined
all scientific accomplishments. Then they determined
to ridicule and rationalize away all the things which
they opposed by pronouncing them "unscientific."
Thus they attacked the Bible, called themselves
higher critics, and attempted to explain it away. They
explained the worship of God as being merely the
effort of man to project the qualities of his own better
nature into some fictitious superior being. They called
Jesus Christ an itinerant preacher whose life and writings were effeminate and weak. They ridiculed the
possibility of his resurrection; They denied the
immortality of human life or the existence of the spirit
or soul.
They said that man was nothing but a graduate beast
and that human life -- especially the other man's life -- was no more sacred than that of a centipede, a
caterpillar, or a pig. In other words, the materialists
turned their backs on six thousand years of human
history and achievement. As Marx and Engels
boasted in their Manifesto: Our program "abolishes
eternal truths; it abolishes all religion and all morality
... it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical
Men Who Worship Themselves
But having denounced God, the scriptures, morals,
immortality, eternal judgment, the existence of the
spirit, and the sanctity of individual human life, the materialists turned to worship themselves. They
decided that man, collectively speaking, was the
epitome of perfection among nature's achievements
and therefore the center of the universe. This gave Nietzsche an excellent opportunity to teach his
concept of "superman."
As Nietzsche exalted himself and all other men as the most superior of all existing things he burst forth into
statements like this: "Now this God (of the Bible) is
dead! You higher men, this God was your greatest
danger.... Do you understand this saying, Oh my
brothers? You are frightened? Do your hearts fail
you? Does the abyss yawn at your feet? What of it?
Forward, higher men! Now at last the mountain of man's future is about to give birth. God is dead; now it
is our will that superman shall live!"7
In the egotistical tunnel vision of these men who
sought to dethrone God there flamed the phantom
hope that somehow they may have made the
discovery of the ages. Nietzsche made a studied
attempt to assume the proper humility which he felt was becoming to such a genius as himself. Said he,
"Great heavens!” Who has any idea of the burden that weighs upon me and the strength that it takes to
endure myself! I don't know why it should fall upon me
of all people -- but it may be that I am the first to light
upon an idea which will divide the history of mankind
in two.... It takes some courage to face that thought."
The Fruits of Materialism
But it took more courage than Nietzsche realized. His
writings groaned with the burden: "Since there
ceased to be a God, loneliness has become
intolerable." But then he bolstered his timidity by
reminding himself that after all he was a superman
and resolved that he, as "the man who overtops the
rest must set to work."8
But if there is no God, no design, and nothing for the
future but an accidental destiny, what is there to work
for? In the dark hours of his anti-theistic reasoning
and just a short time before he went insane, Nietzsche
could not help asking himself:"How did we come to
do that? How did we manage to empty the sea? Who
gave us a sponge to wipe out the whole horizon?
What were we about when we undid the chain which
linked this earth to the sun? Are we not wandering
through an endless nothingness? Do we not feel the
breath of the void in our faces? Isn't it growing colder?
Is not night always coming on, one night after another, more and more?"9
Such was the final, fearful lamentation of the men who
started the chain-reaction of pure materialism.
Now we have reached an interesting point in the
history of the United States when the word
"Communism" has become universally unpopular. If
the label of Communism is placed upon a person or
an institution it may bring ruin overnight. The
disgraceful conduct of Communist leaders has given
their name a deep-dyed stigma in the United States.
Communists without Labels
But how many Americans could recognize a Communist without his label? What does a Communist really believe? Most people identify
Communism as "state-ownership of property" or
Socialism. It is interesting, however, that the
economics of Communism are primarily for
propaganda purposes. The idea of sharing the wealth
appeals to the masses. However, when the Communists took over in Russia you will recall that
the first thing they did was impose upon the Russian
people a form of economics which we got rid of back
in the feudal days. It is a system where a privileged
few dispense the necessities of life to the serfs who work for them and rely upon them for protection and
But if Communist economics are primarily
propaganda, what, then, does the Communist
In the interest of time I have endeavored to reduce the
basic belief of these people to four fundamental
concepts which turn out to be the basis for their
philosophy. These beliefs are the heart and soul of
dialectical materialism. They pretend to provide a
complete explanation for the whole universe. They
provide the reasoning which gives an excuse to the Communist for his revolutionary violence and amoral
conduct. They are the things which convert a few
intellectual people to this foreign ideology, and they
intellectual people to this foreign ideology, and they
are the things which even make a few wealthy people
think that Communism is the last great hope of the modern world. Understanding these beliefs helps to
evaluate the actions of the Communists when we sit
down with them to discuss world problems.
First Major Premise of Communism
Their first major premise is this:"Everything in
existence came about as a result of ceaseless motion
among the forces of nature." Everything is a product
of accumulated accident. There is no design. There is
no law. There is no God. There is only force, the force
of nature. Force is right, force is good, and force is
The idea of "dialectics" as propounded by the Communist intellectual is that "conflict in nature" is the womb of all creation; that out of fierce, writhing forces
in the elements we obtained all that now is -- stars,
solar system, plants, animals and the intelligence of man.
When these dialectical materialists first tried to tell me
that everything in the universe was the result of force
and accident, I could not help but recall the teachings
of my high school chemistry professor who said that
the major premise of science is recognition of the fact
that there is order in the universe resulting from
intelligent design. He pointed out that the mission of
the scientist is to explore and discover the
engineering principles followed by the Master
Architect so that these can be used as a blessing for mankind. In other words, the very foundation of
science is the recognition of an intelligent designer who used principles which we ourselves can discover
and use.
The followers of Marx are so desperately anxious to
over-throw the recognition of God that they have
denied that there is any design in the universe. They
refuse to admit that there is order, law, or an
intelligent creator behind the phenomena of nature.
They say all of these things are the product of
accumulated accident. I wonder what my chemistry
professor would say to that? These materialists claim
o’ glorify the name of science and to march under its
banner, but, in their anxiety to discredit and repudiate God, they have openly denied the very things which
science has demonstrated.
Second Major Premise
Now here is their second major premise: "Human
beings are only graduate beasts," and therefore
human life is no more sacred than that of a centipede,
a caterpillar or a pig. The completely reckless
disregard for human life is the most striking, single
characteristic of "materialism in action." For many
Americans, the things which were experienced in the
Korean War have brought a rude awakening. It means
a big difference when we are dealing with people who
look upon all humanity as merely "graduate beasts."
Third Major Premise
The third major premise of Communism is this:
"There is no such thing as innate right or wrong." As
one of their leaders pointedly declared, "To lie, is that wrong? Not for a good cause. To steal, is that wrong?
Not for a good cause. To kill, is that wrong? Not for a
good cause." We can that pragmatism -- that the end
justifies the means. The dialectical materialists look
upon ethics and morals as superficial and fraudulent.
V.I. Lenin declared: "The upbringing of Communist
youth must not consist of all sorts of sentimental
speeches and precepts." And in the same volume he
states that "Morality is that which serves to destroy the
old exploiting society.... Communist morality is the morality which serves this struggle."10
It is highly important to Communist discipline to have
every person obey blindly. To obey blindly is
considered good and therefore morally right. But a
system of morals which controls conduct in terms of
right and wrong makes each individual a moral free
agent. This, Communism cannot stand.
Fourth Major Premise
The fourth major premise of Communism is "That all
religion must be overthrown because it inhibits the
spirit of world revolution." It was the feeling of Marx,
Engels and their fellow travelers that the deep spiritual
convictions of the people hindered their acceptance
of Communist philosophy and Communist rule. It kept
them from capturing the revolutionary spirit. It kept
them from lying and stealing and killing when leaders
commanded it. As one of their writers declared:
"Religion does not fit into a dialectical materialist
system of thought. It is the enemy of it. One cannot be
a thorough materialist, that is, a dialectical materialist,
and have any remnants of religious beliefs."11 Marx
said: "Religion is the opium of the people," and as we
have pointed out previously, it became a prime
objective of the Communist Manifesto to overthrow
"all religions."
The Communist founders were not satisfied to have
their disciples merely ignore religion. They felt it was
highly essential that religion be methodically replaced with militant atheism.
One of their writers declared: "Atheism is a natural
and inseparable part of Marxism ... consequently; a
class-conscious Marxist party must carry on
propaganda in favor of atheism."12
In one of their
youth magazines the following instruction appeared:
"If a Communist youth believes in God and goes to Church, he fails to fulfill his duties. This means that he
has not yet rid himself of a religious superstition and
has not yet become a fully conscious person."13
The Communists have written volumes against
religion, but this is sufficient to demonstrate that
atheism and the rejection of all religions is a very
important part of the Communist program.
Can Communist Beliefs Hurt Us?
So there you have the four major premises of
Communism. Some people will say, "Well, if that's what it takes to make a Communist -- so what? What
they believe cannot hurt me." Such attitudes have
practically been our undoing. These beliefs can hurt
us. For example, let me tell you briefly of an important
event which occurred toward the conclusion of World
War II.
This incident began in June, 1943, when a young
Russian by the name of Igor Gouzenko arrived by
plane in Ottawa, Canada. He was immediately
assigned to the military attache of the Russian
Embassy as a cipher clerk. This was the first time Igor Gouzenko had ever been outside of Russia. He later wrote: "I was surprised during the first days by the
complete freedom of the individual which exists in
Canada, but which does not exist in Russia."14
He observed that even during war time, the people
enjoyed comparative freedom, that they were a happy
people and that the government served the people
rather than vice versa. He vicariously enjoyed their
freedom just by watching them. As he himself said: "I
saw the evidence of what a free people can do. What
the Canadian people have accomplished and are
accomplishing here under conditions of complete
freedom, the Russian people, under the conditions of
the Soviet Regime of violence and suppression of all
freedom, cannot accomplish even at the cost of
tremendous sacrifices, blood and tears."15
He was impressed by the vast quantities of goods
that were on sale in the stores and he was amazed to
find they could be purchased by anyone. He was
impressed by the lack of fear and the lack of chaos, which the Russian propaganda machine claimed
existed. Most impressive of all was the way
democracy worked. He said: "The last elections which took place recently in Canada, especially
surprised me. In comparison with them, the system of
elections in Russia appears as a mockery of the
conceptions of free elections."16
What Puzzled Gouzenko Most?
But while Igor Gouzenko was working for the military
attache of the Soviet Embassy, he noticed something
else. He observed that contact was being made with
top Canadian scientists and sometimes with
important Canadian officials. Often they were actually
cooperating in furnishing highly secret Government
data to the Communist military agents. Gouzenko was
further puzzled by the fact that he knew these
important officials and scientists were aware that the
ultimate aim of the Communists was a world-wide
revolution which would destroy the Canadian Government as well as all others.
After watching these developments for a period of two
years, Igor Gouzenko decided that he would warn the Canadian people of what was happening. Already he
had made up his mind that he would never go back to Russia and raise his own child the way he had been
raised. He told his wife that he intended to leave the Russian Embassy and warn the Canadian Government of the espionage network in its midst.
To prove his story he secreted a lot of espionage
documents in his clothing and then went to the Canadian officials. He thought, of course, that he would be welcomed with open arms -- that the Canadians would be delighted to have the in. side
story. But as he watched the expressionless face of
the first person he contacted, Gouzenko realized he
had exposed himself to great danger. The man did
not believe him! Only at the last moment, when Gouzenko was actually in danger of being recaptured
by the Russian NKVD did it finally dawn on some of
the officials that perhaps this Soviet code clerk's story might be true. He was therefore immediately taken
into protective custody so he could tell his story to the world.
Treason in High Places
The Canadians wondered if the people named by
Gouzenko actually would collaborate with a potential
enemy, The list included such men as Dr. Raymond
Boyer, wealthy faculty member of McGill University, who was a senior supervisor in the National Research
Council and co-inventor of the explosive RDX in World War II; Eric Adams, graduate of McGill and
Harvard, serving in a top position in the Industrial
Development Bank; Israel Halperin, professor of mathematics at Queen's University in Ontario and
doing highly technical research for the Directorate of
Artillery; David Gordon Lunin, editor of Canadian
Affairs; Dr. David Shugar, employed by Research
Enterprises Limited, doing advanced research on
radar; Harold Gerson, holding a top administrative
position in the Allied War Supply; F.W. Poland, an
officer in the Directorate of Intelligence of the Royal
Canadian Air Force; and there was Kathleen Mary
Willsher, who held a confidential position with the High Commissioner of the United Kingdom in Canada.
These and other persons on the list were promptly
arrested and investigated by a Royal Canadian Commission. This Commission later reported:
"Perhaps the most startling single aspect of the entire
fifth column network is the uncanny success with which the Soviet Agents were able to find Canadians who were willing to betray their country and to supply
to agents of a foreign power secret information to which they had access -- in spite of oaths of
allegiance, oaths of office, and oaths of secrecy which
they had taken."17
What the Royal Commission wanted to know was why
these high Canadian officials would deliberately turn
against the interest of their native land. They asked
these people if they had been bribed and one of them
replied, "If they had offered me money, I would have
been insulted."
When the Commission inquired into the background
of these people, they found they were casualties in the
ideological war which is being waged between the materialists and the free world. These people had
been raised in freedom. They had gone to Canadian
and American schools, yet, when asked why they
collaborated with the Soviet Agents, one of them
made a typical reply: "I thought I was helping
How were these men and women, raised in a free world, converted by Communist agents to believe that
if they collaborated they would be helping humanity?
Supposing you were a scientist and one of these
agents came to you. How would you react?
Supposing he said, "My friend, you know that there is
no divine intelligence guiding the human race; you
know there is no Providential destiny for humanity; you
know that if superior intelligences like yourself do not
help us gain control of the human race it will destroy
itself." Can you even imagine yourself giving this
reply: "I must confess that, in my heart of hearts, I do
not believe that there is any God or divine intelligence
guiding the human race. Therefore, I suppose I should
feel it my duty as one of the superior intelligences of my generation -- and for the salve of humanity -- to
collaborate with your movement which is destined to
take over and save the race from itself."
This was not only typical of the statements which many of the Soviet-converted Canadians admitted making, but they verified their complete devotion to
such ideas by deliberately engaging in subversive
activities against their own country.
The Secret Weapon of Communism
Now what do we deduct from this? Simply that these
people were home-grown materialists! As Igor Gouzenko pointed out, there is a defect in your culture when your own people can grow up in your midst without gaining on appreciation of the difference
between freedom and slavery, between idealism and
atheism, between faith and doubt, or between order
and chaos.
Somehow we failed to provide these people with the
necessary ammunition to protect them in that critical moment when they were contacted by the agents of a
foreign ideology. And we should be quick to
recognize that if our culture and system of education
is producing materialists, then this is the greatest
secret weapon the Communists possess!
This means that we can spend two billion dollars
developing the atomic bomb and the Communists
can sit back and wait until we have succeeded. Then,
they can drain off the information from some of our top
security personnel. In fact, that is exactly what they
The greatest mistake that is being made in the free world today is the fact that we are mixing iron and
clay. We are fighting for freedom but allowing some of
our boys and girls to grow up believing in things which
turn out to be basic Communistic concepts. Materialism is not Americanism but Communism.
Every time we produce a boy or girl who is trained to
believe that the universe is the product of
accumulated accident, that human beings are only
graduate beasts, that there is no such thing as innate
right or wrong or that deep spiritual convictions are
old-fashioned and unnecessary, then we have caused
a casualty among our own ranks in the field of
ideological warfare.
Without his ever knowing it, a young American is
thereby trained to be a potential Red ally. This is
indeed the great secret weapon of Communism.
Home-Made Materialism
Now where does an American boy or girl pick up the
teachings of materialism? I think I can answer part of
that question from a personal experience in an
American institution of learning.
I was in my second year -- a sophomore -- and was
taking my first course in philosophy. One morning the
Professor said: "Now you young people are
sufficiently mature so that your minds should be
cleansed from the barnacles of superstition which
probably accumulated during your youth. When you were children you were told about Santa Claus. Now
you know the truth about Santa Claus. When you were
children you were told about the stork. Now you know
the truth about that." He then stated that he was about
to clarify our thinking in another field which had been
cluttered up with childhood fairy tales. "Today," he
said, "I will tell you where the ideas about God came
from and also about religion." All of us sat back to
absorb the gems of knowledge we were about to
"Now in the beginning," said the professor, "men worshipped things which they created with their own
hands. It was called idolatry. Later, men imagined that
there were a great many unseen gods -- a god of war,
a god of love, a god of rain, etc., and all these gods
required sacrifices in order to keep them happy. Otherwise they showed forth their wrath. Therefore
they were frequently called gods of vengeance."
The professor then stated that the Bible is an
excellent history of the evolution of religion. He said
that it is clear from Bible study that the practice of
idolatry prevailed among ancient peoples and that the Hebrews finally rose above it to worship Jehovah as a God of Vengeance. He said the people of Israel made sacrifices to Jehovah to keep him happy.
"Then," he said, "Jesus came along and declared that
God was a God of Love possessing the attributes of
all the Platonic ultimates. Jesus taught that God was
kind, just and forgiving. He taught the higher concepts
of the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Golden Rule."
"Now," he continued, "This is the God men worship
today, A God of Love as taught by Jesus. And it is
good to go to church and worship this concept of God
because it elevates the mind and stimulates the
higher senses."
"But," he continued emphatically, "I want you young
people to remember this: The idea of God is exactly
like other human creations -- like a great symphony
someone has written, or a great poem; you don't have
to fear God, because we made him up!"
The professor finished by saying, "There is nothing watching over you -- answering your prayers, or
directing the human race toward some divine destiny.
You young people are on your own."
As the lecture concluded, I looked around at my fellow
classmates. On the faces of some there seemed to
be an expression of considerable relief. It was as
though they were saying "Well, what do you know?
Nobody's watching me after all! So that's what God is

© 2018 All Rights Reserved. All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. We are not responsible for content written by and hosted on third-party websites. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. We assume no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners. .......Tags: "israel nuked wtc" 9-11 Truth jfk assassination "cultural marxism" "holocaust hoax" "fake news" "fake history" fed censorship "mind control" tavistock holohoax auschwitz deep state kabbalah talmud bush obama clinton trump russiagate spygate israel britain saudi arabia middle east rothschild cold war comey brennan clapper yellow vests populism nuclear demolition communism marxism socialism pedophiliacontact:


9-11 9-11 vimeo