Mencken on the Two Types of Democracy

Mencken on the Two Types of Democracy

Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes the two types of democracy, pages 79-85. Below is an overview of his discussion of the two types of democracy; my comments are in brackets.
    [Representative democracy and direct democracy are the two types of democracies that Mencken discusses.]
    Mencken states, “Sovereignty is in him [the lowly Christian, i.e., the inferior man], sometimes both actually and legally, but always actually. Whatever he wants badly enough he can get. If he is misled by mountebanks and swindled by scoundrels it is only because his credulity and imbecility cover a wider area than his simple desires.” Continuing, Mencken writes, “The precise form of the government he suffers under is of small importance. Whether it be called a constitutional monarchy, as in England, or a representative republic, as in France, or a pure democracy, as in some of the cantons of Switzerland, it is always essentially the same. There is, first, the mob, theoretically and in fact the ultimate judge of all ideas and the source of all power. There is, second, the camorra of self-seeking minorities, each seeking to inflame, delude and victimize it. The political process thus becomes a mere battle of rival rogues. But the mob remains quite free to decide between them.” Occasionally and miraculously, the mob chooses the relatively honest and enlightened. More often, it chooses the thieves “because their words are words it understands and their ideas are ideas it cherishes.” Nevertheless, the mob “has the power to throw them off at will, and even at whim, and it also has the means.” [As the lowly Christian is now a minority of the mob in most democratic countries, if Mencken were to write this today, he would need to use another descriptor of the mob. Possibly, he uses “Christian” because he has a low opinion of Christians.]
    Mencken contends, “A great deal of paper and ink has been wasted discussing the difference between representative government and direct democracy.” Many of these pundits conclude that representative government is full of defects. “Not only does it take the initiative in law-making out of the hands of the plain people and leave them only the function of referees; it also raises certain obvious obstacles to their free exercise of that function.” Being scattered and unorganized, the people are unable “to formulate their virtuous desires quickly and clearly, or to bring to the resolution of vexed questions the full potency of their native sagacity. Worse, they find it difficult to enforce their decisions, even when they have decided.”
    Liberals cry over this fact. Their remedy is usually a “purer democracy.” That is, they propose “the recall, the initiative and referendum, or something else of the sort, and so convert the representative into a mere clerk or messenger.” Thus, they place “the final determination of all important public questions . . . in the hands of the voters themselves.” Only the voters “can muster enough wisdom for the business, and they alone are without guile. The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy.” [As witnessed in the United States, as the qualifications needed to be a voter has been lowered, the quality of government has declined. As the quality of government has declined, its power over and control of the people have grown.]
    Mencken notes that more democracy has never cured the evils of democracy. He adds, “Certainly no competent historian believes that the citizens assembled in a New England town-meeting actually formulated en masse the transcendental and immortal measures that they adopted, nor even that they contributed anything of value to the discussion thereof.” Mencken remarks that this “notion is as absurd as the parallel notion, long held by philologues of defective powers of observation, that the popular ballads surviving from earlier ages were actually composed by the folk. The ballads, in point of fact, were all written by concrete poets, most of them not of the folk; the folk, when they had any hand in the business at all, simply acted as referees, choosing which should survive.” Likewise, “the New England town-meeting was led and dominated by a few men of unusual initiative and determination, some of them genuinely superior, but most of them simply demagogues and fanatics. The citizens in general heard the discussion of rival ideas, and went through the motions of deciding between them, but there is no evidence that they ever had all the relevant facts before them or made any effort to unearth them, or that appeals to their reason always, or even usually, prevailed
over appeals to their mere prejudice and superstition. . . . Some of the most idiotic decisions ever come to by mortal man were made by the New England town-meetings, and under the leadership of monomaniacs who are still looked upon as ineffable blossoms of the contemporary Kultur.” [What would one expect from Puritans?]
    Nevertheless, “the difference between representative democracy and direct democracy is a great deal less marked than political sentimentalists assume. Under both forms the sovereign mob must employ agents to execute its will, and in either case the agents may have ideas of their own, based upon interests of their own, and the means at hand to do and get what they will. Moreover, their very position gives them a power of influencing the electors that is far above that of any ordinary citizen.” [Thus, incumbents usually win elections.]
    Mencken adds that “both forms of democracy encounter the difficulty that the generality of citizens, no matter how assiduously they may be instructed, remain congenitally unable to comprehend many of the problems before them, or to consider all of those they do comprehend in an unbiased and intelligent manner.” [This inability to comprehend in an unbiased and intelligent manner is also true of most members of Congress and State legislatures.]
    Continuing, Mencken remarks that “the great masses of Americans of to-day, though they are theoretically competent to decide all the larger matters of national policy, and have certain immutable principles, of almost religious authority, to guide them, actually look for leading to professional politicians, who are influenced in turn by small but competent and determined minorities, with special knowledge and special interests.” [Liberals and progressives consider the people intelligent and competent enough to decide who will govern the country, at least until they elected Donald Trump, but they consider the people too stupid and incompetent to govern their own lives. The people need enlightened liberals and progressives whom they have elected to govern the country to govern their lives.] By this means, the plain people were shoved into World War I. “They were, in overwhelming majority, against going in, and if they had had any sense and resolution they would have stayed out. But these things they lacked.” [The same thing happened with World War II. Roosevelt maneuvered the people into war that most did not want by maneuvering Japan into attacking U.S. territory.]
    In conclusion, the difference between representative democracy and pure democracy is more apparent than real.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

THE SOLDIER

[Editor’s note: This poem was written by my mother.]

THE SOLDIER

Josephine Armstrong

A soldier now is he,
The time has come for him to cross the sea, and fight for his country.
In the hammock at midnight he lay,
Not knowing what weariness he would face the next day,

Through the porthole the moon beams shone,
As the soldier lay there wishing; for the break of dawn.
But soon he was awaken,
Take your place on deck came a shout!
This was all the soldier could hear day in and day out.

The winds would whisper and the waves would roll,
And in the wild blustering of bullets and bombs
He could hear them call for his soul.
But brave was the soldier both day and night,
For he wanted to win his fight,

At last, he had reached the foreign land,
And there he stood just off deck upon the sand,
He lifted his right hand upon his forehead and said:
He would fight for his country until he was dead.

The soldier marched on with his body in pain,
He was not ready to give up in vain.
His heart was breaking for a word from love ones back home,
But his address to them was unknown.

The soldier marched forward through blood, toil, cloud, and fire,
Never knowing when he would be able to retire.
While down in the sod, the soldier often lifted his head to heaven above and prayed to God,
For the soldier knew that it is He who is God of the Country and could give men their freedom and liberty.

The soldier marched far,
Still trying the war to bar,
Suddenly he was struck down by a bullet so powerful and strong,
That even the strings of his heart were stung,
He closes his eyes for no more can he see,
And he utters a Whisper, “My country I have done the best I could for Thee.”

Josephine Ann Armstrong
Written ”Year, 1939”

Copyright © 1939 by Josephine Ann Armstrong

More poems

Nationalism and Imperialism

Nationalism and Imperialism

 Thomas Allen

    Nationalism is often accused of being the cause of many wars. It has been accused of aggressive war-making. It has been accused of causing one nationality to impose its will on another nationality. Nationalism has been falsely maligned. Much of what is blamed on nationalism should be placed on imperialism.

    Before proceeding, a distinction needs to be made between a “nation” and a “country.” A “nation” is a community of people of the same race having a common origin and language and with common traditions, culture, economy, etc. that is capable of forming a nation-state, i.e., a politically organized relatively homogenous people inhabiting a sovereign state. A country is the territory that a political state governs. A nation is the people, and a country is the land.

    Much confusion exists between nationalism and imperialism. Nationalism seeks to preserve a nationality. It seeks to preserve a nation (not to be confused with a country, most of which today are empires) and its culture, language, race, laws, economy, etc. On the other hand, imperialism seeks to impose the culture, laws, economy, etc. of one nationality on another nationality. Nationalism is essentially the opposite of imperialism.

    Nationalism acquired its belligerent reputation in the nineteenth century when various nations attempted to secede from various European and American Empires. The Irish attempted to secede from the British Empire. Several nations of the Austrian Empire attempted to secede. They were unsuccessful. However, Hungry did manage to obtain parity with Austria; hence, Austria-Hungry was born. Secession from the Turkish Empire was more successful as Greeks, Serbians, Romanians, Bulgarians, and Albanians won their independence. In North America, the Southern States failed in their attempt to secede from the American Empire.

    Many historians agree that the fundamental cause of World War I was imperialistic in nature. Few blame nationalism for the war. As destructive as that war was, it did advance the cause of nationalism — at least in Europe.

    The Irish gained independence although the status of Ulster has yet to be satisfactorily resolved.

    The Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed into several nations. Although they lost part of their nation (part of Tirol) to Italy and were not united with the Bavarian provinces of Bavaria, the Bayuvar (or Austro-Bavarians) formed a new Austria. Although they lost part of their nation (Vojvodina) to Serbia, the Hungarians formed a new Hungary. The Czechs gained their independence although they held the Slovaks in subjection until 1992 when the Slovaks gained their independence and the Ruthenians until the end of World War II when they were transferred to the Soviet Union. In the south, the Croats, Dalmatians, Slovenes, Bosnians, and Herzegovinians were not so fortunate. They were merged into the Serbian Empire (commonly called Yugoslavia) along with the Montenegrins and Macedonians until the collapse of the Soviet Empire precipitated the collapse of the Serbian Empire. (However, the Montenegrins remained under Serbian rule, and the Dalmatians remained under Croat rule.)

    Out of the fall of the Russian Empire came homelands for nations of the Finns, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Kashubians in Gdansk, and Poles. The Byelorussians were divided between Poland and Russia.

    Germany’s African and Asian colonies were transferred to England, France, and Japan. The Alemanni of Alsace and the French of Lorraine were placed under French rule. Much of the German Empire that was Polish became part of Poland.

    The French replaced the Turks as the rulers of the Syrians, Druzes, and Christian Lebanese. The English replaced the Turks as the rulers of the Palestinians, the Arabs of Amman, and the Shiite Arabs of Baghdad and Basra.

    World War II is what really caused the undeserving reputation of nationalism as the cause of aggressive belligerence. The fascist movements in Italy and Germany claimed to be nationalistic, and the gullible, who included just about everyone in academia in the West, believed the fascists and still do. Hitler went so far in this deception that he named his movement National Socialism. Both Germany and Italy were imperialistic, not nationalistic. They sought to conquer other nations and to impose their values, ideology, economy, laws, etc. on these conquered nations.

    Germany and Italy could not have been acting in a nationalistic spirit because both were, and still are, an empire of nations. Germany consisted of at least eight nations: the Bayuvars, Alemanni (who were, and still are, divided among Germany, Switzerland, and France), Franconians (or Upper Germans), Germans (or Middle Germans), Brandenburgians, Plattdeutsch, Wends (a Slavonic people), and Prussians (who lost their homeland to the Poles as a result of World War II). Italy consisted of at least thirteen nations: the Piedmontese, Gallo-Italians, Venetians, Tuscans, Latins, Neapolitans, Sicilians, Sardinians, Friulians, Ladins, Bayuvars in Tirol, Savoyards in the northwest (the remainder of whom live under French rule) and Slovenes in Istria (who were reunited with their kindred after World War II in the Serbian Empire).

    Following World War II the map of Europe again changed. The Soviet Union absorbed the Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians. The eastern boundary of Poland was redrawn, and all of the Byelorussians and Volhynians (whom the Ukrainians now rule) were placed under Russian rule. The Ruthenians (whom the Ukrainians now rule) traded their Czech rulers for Russian rulers, and the Lemks and Boyks (whom the Ukrainians now rule) traded their Polish rulers for Russian rulers. The Rumanians of Bessarabia were also absorbed into the Soviet Union.

    The Prussian states (Prussian, Pomerelia, and Pomerania) were absorbed into Poland, and the Prussians for the most part were driven from their homeland. The eastern portion of Brandenburg also became part of Poland as did Gdansk (Danzig) with the resulting loss of autonomy for the Kashubians.

    At least in Europe, World War II was not nationalistic in nature but was imperialistic. Because of the war, several nations lost their countries, and no nation gained independence. However, in Asia and Africa, things were different. The European colonial empires collapsed. Many new countries were born. Unfortunately, for the most part, these new countries were not nations in the true sense but were a conglomeration of nations.

    One new country that was a nation born following World War II was the Jewish nation of Israel. However, this nation soon shifted from nationalism to imperialism as it conquered and imposed its rule on the Palestinians.

    Between the end of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Empire, several nations have cried out for independence — some even to the point of armed insurrection. Some of these nations are the Punjabi in India, the Kurds in Iran, Iraq, and Turkey, the Palestinians in Israel, the Boers in South Africa, the Corsicans and Bretons in France, the Basque in France and Spain, the Welsh and Scotts in Great Britain, the Quebeckers in Canada, and the Southern Americans in the United States.

    The collapse of the Soviet Empire brought nationalism to the forefront and has caused imperialism to retreat. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the puppet governments in Eastern Europe, many new countries, most of which are true nations, came into being. Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are again independent. Byelorussians now have an independent homeland for the first time in history. Ukraine is an independent country although it continues to contain several nations along with the Ukrainians. The Rumanians of Moldavia (Bessarabia) have gained independence. In the Caucasian region, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaidzhan are independent. Georgia still consists of four different nations. Armenia’s union with the Armenians of Erzenrum in Turkey remains. Also, remaining is the union of the Azeris of Azerbaidzhan with the Azeris of Iran. In Central Asia, the Tajik now have an independent homeland in Tajikistan. The Turanian countries of Kazakh, Turkmen, Uzbek, and Kirghiz have also gained independence.

    In Eastern Europe outside the old Soviet Union, several new countries, which for the most part consist predominately of one nation, have been born. Czechoslovakia has divided. The Czechs (Bohemians) have their homeland, and the Slovaks have theirs. Yugoslavia has divided. The Slovenes, Croats, and Macedonians have their independent homelands.

    Although the growth of modern-day nationalism began long before World War I, it really began to bear fruit with the collapse of Turkey’s European empire that began several decades before that war with the creation of several new countries that were true nations. Then nationalism was driven back as imperialism reared its ugly head as the Italian, German, Russian, and Japanese empires began expansion. Imperialism peaked with World War II. Since the conquests of the Soviet Union at the conclusion of World War II, imperialism has been retreating, and nationalism has been advancing. Empires have collapsed, and none have risen to take their place although the United States have been striving to establish an empire of puppet states throughout the world.


Copyright © 1994, 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on politics.

China

China
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Footnotes in the original are omitted.]

At the conclusion of World War II, Illuminists began building up China as the next world power that the Illuminists planned to use to initiate their third world war. This war would eradicate the Aryan people, or at least reduce them to such insignificance that the postwar mop up could eliminate the few remaining ones.

Some believe that the buildup of China was intended to be a counter balance to the Soviet Union. Illuminists of the West could use China to keep the Soviet Union in line if the Illuminists of the Soviet Union started acting too independently. This was the claim of the Establishment media, which Illuminists control. Even people not controlled by Illuminists thought such was the reason. However, the greatest transfer of wealth and technology to China occurred after the dismantlement of the Soviet Union and during the administration of President William Clinton, a Rhodes scholar and CFR member, and continued by President G.W. Bush, a member of Skull and Bones.

The United States’ war with Japan aided communist advancement in China. Before the war, Japan had not only halted communist expansion in China, but had caused it to retreat.

While Chiang Kai-shek’s army was trying to drive the Japanese from China, the Soviet backed Chinese Communist Party was capturing the territory to Chiang’s rear. By 1943, the Communists had gained controlled of northern China.

After Germany’s defeat, Japan sought peace. However, Harry Dexter White and other Soviet agents of Stalin persuaded Truman to continue the war and to destroy Japan as a power in the Far East. The war continued long enough to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (one of the few centers of Christian missionary work in the Far East) and for the Soviet Union to declare war on Japan. (For its two days of war against Japan, the Soviet Union received the Kurile Islands and South Sakhalin and control of the Manchuria railroad.)

Among the Far Eastern experts whose advise Roosevelt and Truman used to force Communism on China were Lauchlin Currie (confidential administrative assistant to the President, Roosevelt’s personal emissary to Chiang, a CFR member, and a spy for the Soviet Union), Gregory Silvermaster (a Jew, Communist, and Soviet agent), Michael Greenberg (a Jew and Communist), and Alger Hiss (a CFR member, Communist, Soviet agent, and spy).

Following World War II, Marshall aided Mao Tse-tung in bringing the Communists to power in China by stopping the supplies of fuel and munitions to Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese, who had been allies of the United Sates in the war against Japan. At this time Marshall was under Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War and a member of the Skull and Bones.

Marshall went to China shortly after World War II and told Chiang that if he did not allow the Communists to enter his government, all American aid would cease. Chiang refused to allow the Communists into his government, and Marshall stopped the aid. After Congress directed that aid be sent to Chiang, the Truman administration prevented the aid from reaching him. Thus, the Communists forced the Nationalists to retreat to Twain. By 1949, the Communists held all mainland China.

Meanwhile, Lattimore, a Soviet agent, and other pro-Communist writers were writing books and articles supporting the Chinese Communists and condemning Chiang. Through book reviews, Lattimore and his procommunist colleagues stifled objective and anticommunist books on the Far East. Mainline magazines, such as the Saturday Evening Post and Colliers, glorified Mao and the Chinese Communist as “agrarian reformers.”

Once Mao gained controlled of China, he began in earnest to carry out his reign of terror. During the first five years of communist rule, Mao had 40 million people liquidated.[1] Husbands were separated from wives, and children, from parents. To destroy the individuality of children, the Communists replaced their names with numbers. Using terror and torture, Mao sought to eradicate all Christians and vestiges of Christianity from China.

The next great advancement for Communist China came in 1971. In 1971, President Richard Nixon appointed George H. W. Bush as United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Bush was a member of the Skull and Bones, Council on Foreign Relations, and Trilateral Commission and became the 41st President. Bush allowed the United Nations to expel the Republic of China (Twain) and to give its seat to Communist China. After faithfully fulfilling his duty to his fellow Illuminists, he resigned and became Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

The build up of China began in earnest during the administration of Ronald Reagan. Bechtel Corp., a privately owned firm, was the company that the Illuminists used to spearhead the reconstruction of China. Among Bechtel’s employees were Richard Helms (Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, CFR member), George Shultz (Secretary of State), and Casper Weinberger (Secretary of Defense). Shultz was the president of Bechtel, and Weinberger was the vice-president and general counsel.

With the Clinton administration, the buildup of China accelerated with the transfer of advance military technology to China. The United States special forces trained Chinese special forces in tactics that could be used in an invasion of Taiwan. The United States intensified its campaign to demoralize the Taiwanese and the surrender of Taiwan to China.

Endnote
1. John A. Stormer, None Dare Call It Treason (Florissant, Missouri: Liberty Bell Press, 1964), p. 133.

References
Cuddy, Dennis L. The Globalists: The Power Elite Exposed. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 2001.

Hoar, William P. Architect of Conspiracy: An Intriguing History. Belmont, Massachusetts: Western Islands, 1984.

Monteith, Stanley. Brotherhood of Darkness. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone, 2000.

Roberts, Archibald E. The Most Secret Science. Fort Collins, Colorado: Betsy Ross Press, 1984.

Skousen, W. Cleon. The Naked Capitalist: A Review and Commentary on Dr. Carroll Quigley’s Book Tragedy and Hope. Salt Lake City, Utah, 1971.

Still, William T. New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies. Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1990.

Stormer, John A. None Dare Call It Treason. Florissant, Missouri: Liberty Bell Press, 1964.

Sutton, Antony C. How the Order Creates War and Revolution. Phoenix, Arizona: Research Publications, Inc., 1984.

Wardner, James W. Unholy Alliances: The Secret Plan and the Secret People Who Are Working to Destroy America. James W. Wardner, 1996.

Webster, Nesta H. World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization. Editor Anthony Gittens. Seventh edition. Palmdale, California: Omni Publications, 1994.

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on history.

Soviet Union Part 3

Soviet Union Part 3
Soviet Union Becomes a World Power
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Footnotes in original are omitted.]

An important result of World War II was the rise of the Soviet Union as a world power. The conflict between autocratic fascism and Communism ended and was replaced with the Cold War, conflict between democratic fascism and Communism.

World War II gave the United States an excellent opportunity and excuse to build up the Soviet Union. The United States gave the Soviet Union top priority in receiving supplies. “One-third of Lend-Lease shipments to Russia comprised industrial supplies for postwar reconstruction.”[1] Supplies under Lend-Lease program continued to flow into the Soviet Union until the end of 1946. (If the primary purpose of supplying the Soviet Union had been the defeat of Hitler instead of expanding the power base of Communism, little or none of the supplies would have been for post war reconstruction, and the shipments would have ended by early 1945 when the defeat of Germany was certain.) More than $11 billion (about $105 billion in 2000 dollars) in aid were given the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease program. In spite of damages caused by the war, the Soviet Union ended World War II with greater industrial capacity than it had in 1940—primarily due to Lend-Lease, reparations, and conquest.

The Lend-Lease Plan had greatly increased the wealth of the Soviet Union and its ability to manufacture war-related materiels. Lend-Lease built the Soviet war machine. The United States also gave the Soviet Union the material necessary to build an atomic bomb. President Roosevelt’s close advisor, Harry Hopkins, who was in charge of Lend-Lease and a Soviet agent, approved the shipment. “Before the United States had itself assembled the first atomic bomb, half of all American uranium and the technical information needed to construct a bomb were sent to Russia.”[2] Toward the end of the war, Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the United States Treasury, gave the Soviet Union plates to print United States German occupation money, which was redeemable by the United States Treasury, to pay for its occupation of East Germany.

To continue aiding the Soviet Union following the war, David Rockefeller for the Council on Foreign Relations conceived what became the Marshall Plan to reconstruct Europe. It was promoted as a plan to save democracy in Europe. John J. McCloy (CFR member) was its chief architect. W. Averell Harriman (CFR member) was appointed head of the Marshall Plan. Furthermore, the Soviet Union was a benefactor of American foreign aid, having received more than $186 million between 1947 and 1970.

Communism and the Soviet Union came out of the war more powerful than ever. Roosevelt and Churchill, both of whom were Freemasons, gave Stalin, a Freemason, and the Communists most of eastern Europe, including Poland. (The war was started ostensibly to free Poland.) In addition to annexing a large portion of Poland, the Soviet Union had annexed Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, part of Finland, and Bessarabia from Rumania. It had puppet governments in East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, and Albania. In Asia, Manchuria and North Korea were turned over to the Communists.

Soviet agents Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and Owen Lattimore lobbied heavily and successfully for Stalin’s goals in both the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. White and Hiss gained control of the positions that controlled the United State’s foreign policy. They had access to top secret documents. They also gave Stalin intelligence.

Fortunately for Germany, Roosevelt balked at implementing the Morgenthau-White Plan, which Stalin favored. Baruch, a spokesman for Jewry, thought the Plan was too soft. Roosevelt blocked the Plan, which he had favored, not because he cared for the Germans or abhorred Communism, but because he feared a public backlash. Furthermore, Truman, who did not like the Plan, became president just before Germany surrendered. Truman was part of the faction of the Roosevelt administration that wanted to rebuild Germany as a check against the Soviet Union. The major backers of the Plan, Morgenthau, resigned after Truman became president.

The purpose of the Morgenthau-White Plan was to destroy Germany’s industrial base and turn Germany into a pastoral communist country. Germany would be made an agricultural country with much of its population starving to death. It required Germany to pay reparation by surrendering “German material resources, German human resources and German territory.”[3] Three essential components of the Plan were (1) the arresting and executing of many Germans without trial, (2) giving millions of Germans who had collaborated with Hitler’s regime to the Soviet Union for unconditional use as slave labor, and (3) returning to the Soviet Union all refugees who had fled the Soviet Union.

Although the Morgenthau-White Plan had been rejected, it was, nevertheless, partially implemented. The Soviets dismantled and carried to Russia much of Germany’s industrial equipment. Much that was not taken was destroyed. The Soviets also transported a large number of Germans to the Soviet Union to perish in slave labor camps.

General Dwight Eisenhower did his part to carry out the Morgenthau-White Plan for Stalin. He ordered forced repatriation of thousands of people who had fled Stalin’s regime. These people faced certain death by execution or in slave labor camps.

The Morgenthau-White Plan, which Communists and Soviet agents in the United States Treasury Department had drawn up, achieved two goals. First, it satisfied unrelenting Jewish vengeance against the German people, whom Jews held guilty for Hitler’s crimes against Jews. (Jews imposed collective guilt on the Germans while opposing fervently imposing collective guilt on Jews.) Second, it enabled the Soviet Union to bring Communism to the heart of Europe.

With the aid of Eisenhower, the Illuminists created a situation that turned Berlin into a foreign policy distraction that would last for decades. Eisenhower stopped the United States Army from taking Berlin. At the Tehran Conference in 1943, Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill seemed to have agreed to let the United States capture and occupy Berlin. Yet 17 months later, the Soviet Union was allowed to occupy Berlin. In the closing days of the war, the U.S. Ninth Army could have easily captured Berlin, probably without firing a shoot. (The only impediment that it faced was German refugees fleeing the Soviets.) When the Ninth Army was within hours of taking Berlin, Eisenhower ordered it to halt. Furthermore, when Patton was on the verge of taking Prague and the last remnant of the Germany army, Eisenhower ordered him not to accept the surrender of the Germany army but to contain it until the Soviets arrived. When the Germans surrendered to the Soviets, Eisenhower ordered Patton to withdraw from Czechoslovakia, thus, giving it to the Soviets.

Initially, Eisenhower took credit for these decisions before the public learned the horrible consequences of them and before he decided to run for President. He later denied responsibility and blamed Roosevelt and Truman. (He was merely a soldier obeying the orders of his superiors.) Nevertheless, Eisenhower seemed to be more responsible for these decisions than either President. According to Field-Marshal Lord Alanbrooke, Eisenhower frequently communicated with Stalin in the closing days of the war. He often informed Stalin of his decisions and actions before he told his own superiors.

Another important actor behind the decision to place Berlin in the Soviet Union’s zone of occupation without a guaranteed access route was George F. Kennan (CFR member). He had persuaded Roosevelt to accept this arrangement. (Roosevelt initially wanted Berlin placed in the zone controlled by the United State.)

Smoot gives three possible explanations for this crazy Berlin arrangement:

(1) the Americans who set up the Berlin arrangement—which means, specifically George F. Kennan and Philip E. Mosely, representing the Council on Foreign Relations—were ignorant fools; or
(2) they wanted to make Berlin a powder keg which the Soviets could use, at will, to intimidate the West; or
(3) they wanted a permanent, ready source of war which the United States government could use, at any time, to salvage its own international policies from criticism at home, by scaring the American people into “buckling down” and “tightening up” for “unity” behind our “courageous President” who is “calling the Kremlin bluff” by spending to prepare this nation for all-out war, if necessary, to “defend the interests of the free-world” in Berlin.[4]

As the members of the Council on Foreign Relations are not ignorant fools, explanation one can be eliminated. As the Council on Foreign Relations does not serve the interests of the Soviet Union, except to the extent those interests serve the Council on Foreign Relations, explanation two can be eliminated. The answer is explanation three. Illuminists could now use Berlin to gain control over the American people.

“Long, long ago, King Henry of England told Prince Hal that the way to run a country and keep the people from being too critical of how you run it, is to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels.”[5]

[Editor’s note: Appendix on the Hungarian Communist Revolution and list of References in original are omitted.]

Endnotes
1. Antony C. Sutton, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union (New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House, 1973), p. 24.

2. John A. Stormer, None Dare Call It Treason (Florissant, Missouri: Liberty Bell Press, 1964), p. 29.

3. Comte Leon de Poncins, State Secrets: A Documentation of the Secret Revolutionary Mainspring Governing Anglo-American Politics (Translator Timothy Tindal-Robertson. 1975), p. 103.

4. Dan Smoot, The Invisible Government (Dallas, Texas: The Dan Smoot Report, Inc., 1962), pp. 32-33.

5. Ibid., p. 33.


Copyright © 2009 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2 

 More articles on history.