"Technology cannot be kept from the Soviets by endless paperwork requirements. Americans who ship crucial weapons and documents to them are criminals: criminals are glad to sign papers."
— George Gilder, New York Times
Are these businessmen, the deaf mute blindmen internationalists, also guilty of treason? It is interesting to initially look at this question from the viewpoint of the other side, the Soviet side. Avraham Shifrin, a former Soviet Defense official, has a blunt conclusion. Shifrin calls the transfers treason and "they (the businessmen) should be shot" (page 21).
To take another example from the other side, the Marxist rebels in El Salvador, the Faranbundo Marti National Liberation Front, receive aid from the Soviet Union. At the same time they claim that our aid to the elected Salvadoran Government makes our military advisors in El Salvador legitimate targets for assassination, i.e., the U.S. is an enemy just by virtue of economic subsidy. In brief, the other side interprets aid, even with no technological component, as equivalent to treason.
In the original version of this book, National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, published in 1974, we declined to term subsidy to the Soviets as treason because the vital element of intent was missing. This conclusion was phrased as follows:
Do the actions described in this book [i.e. National Suicide] constitute "adhering" to these enemies, "giving them Aid and Comfort"?
The actions do not legally constitute treason. The Constitution defines the term strictly, for the intention of the framers, with good reason, was to deny Congress the right to interpret treason too freely. Moreover, the body of relevant case law is not substantial. The Cramer and Haupt cases after World War I suggest that both intent to commit treason and overt treasonable acts are required, in addition to thorough proof. While the actions described here could be interpreted as giving immediate "Aid and Comfort" to the Soviet Union, there is no specific evidence of intent, and in-. tent is a vital requirement. Idiocy, inefficiency, intellectual myopia, and so on, do not suggest intent (p. 240).
We need to pose the question again, given the accumulating evidence of the last 11 years. Does this sequence of events and actions fall within the meaning of treason? Specifically, does military aid to the Soviet Union constitute "adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"? as defined in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States.51
Are the Soviets Enemies?
The Soviets have always been explicit about their intentions — so was Hitler in Mein Kampf.
Objective truth has no place in Communist morality, by their own statements. Any statement that will advance the cause of world communism is regarded as truthful, acceptable, and perfectly normal. As far back as 1919, Zinoviev put it well in a statement that applies to the Viet Cong and the Sandanistas as much as to the revolutionary Bolsheviks:
We are willing to sign an unfavorable peace. It would only mean we should put no trust whatever in the piece of paper we should sign. We should use the breathing space so obtained in order to gather our strength.52
This immoral dogma — moral only in Marxist ideology — was emphasized by Joseph Stalin:
Words must have no relations to actions — otherwise what kind of diplomacy is it? Words are one thing, actions another. Good words are a mask for concealment of bad deeds. Sincere diplomacy is no more possible than dry water or wooden iron.53
In 1955 the staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary examined the Soviet historical record and, not unexpectedly in the light of the foregoing statements, came to the following conclusion:
The staff studied nearly a thousand treaties and agreements ... both bilateral and multilateral, which the Soviets have entered into not only with the United States, but with countries all over the world. The staff found that in the 38 short years since the Soviet Union came into existence, its Government had broken its word to virtually every country to which it ever gave a signed promise. It signed treaties of nonaggression with neighboring states and then absorbed those states. It signed promises to refrain from revolutionary activity inside the countries with which it sought "friendship" and then cynically broke those promises. It was violating the first agreement it ever signed with the United States at the very moment the Soviet envoy, Litvinov, was putting his signature to that agreement, and it is still violating the same agreement in 1955. It broke the promises it made to the Western nations during previous meetings "at the summit" in Teheran and Yalta. It broke lend-lease agreements offered to it by the United States in order to keep Stalin from surrendering to the Nazis. It violated the charter of the United Nations. It keeps no international promises at all unless doing so is clearly advantageous to the Soviet Union.
[We] seriously doubt whether during the whole history of civilization any great nation has ever made as perfidious a record as this in so short a time.54
More recently in the 1970s and 1980s the Soviets have broken the SALT treaties and used the era of detente to develop an awe-inspiring weapons arsenal.
Consequently, the history of Soviet foreign relations from 1917 to the present suggests, for those who can interpret history, two conclusions: 1. The Soviets will not keep their word in any foreign agreement. 2. Their intent is self-admittedly aggressive, with world conquest as the ultimate goal.
The 1970s era of detente was a sham. Increased U.S.-Soviet trade, allegedly designed to lower tensions, was entirely contrary to historical observation and rational deduction. Mikhail Suslov, longtime Russian Communist Party theoretician, stated in 1972 that the U.S.-Soviet detente was temporary and that, so far as the Soviet Union is concerned, merely an interlude to gain strength for the next stage of the battle against "imperialist aggression." Suslov in 1972 repeated and reinforced Zinoviev's 1919 statement; there is no change of heart or direction.
The Soviet Record of Aggression
A review of the human cost of Soviet double-dealing emphasizes not only the risk we run by attempts to mellow Soviet statism, but the extreme seriousness of the actions of the deaf mute blindmen.
In every year since the Bolshevik Revolution the Soviets have murdered their own citizens for political reasons: that is, for alleged or real opposition to the Soviet state. The AFL-CIO has mapped Soviet forced labor camps. Moreover, in every year since 1917 the Soviets have attacked other countries or interfered massively in their internal affairs.55
The human cost of the Bolshevik Revolution and the ensuing civil war in Russia has been estimated at 7 million Russians. Between 1930 and 1950 more than 20 million Russians died in forced labor camps. Khrushchev personally supervised the massacre of more than 10,000 Ukrainians at Vinnitsa.
Soviet agents were in Spain before the Spanish Civil War of 1936 and unquestionably had some role in starting it (cost: 275,000 killed).
The supply of Soviet armaments to the Spanish Republic is known from material in the records of the German military attache at Ankara, Turkey.56 Soviet arms shipments began in September 1936. Soviet intelligence agents, operating in Spain before the war broke out, were under General Ulansky, who was also responsible for logistics. In addition to supplies, the Soviets sent 920 military "advisers": 70 air force of-ricers, 100 other officers (as early as September 1936), and 750 enlisted men. From September 1936 to March 1938 about 110 shiploads of Russian military supplies left Odessa en route to Spain, almost all from plants built by the deaf mute blindmen. Foreshadowing the situation when the USSR supplied Cuba and North Vietnam, only thirty-two of these ships were under the Soviet flag — and most of these Soviet-flag vessels were foreign-built. These 110 vessels carried the following armaments to Spain from the new Western-built Soviet plants:
Tanks and armored cars 731
Planes (mostly fighter aircraft) 242
Antiaircraft Guns 27
What was the U.S. technical component of these arms?
The tanks sent to Spain in 1936 were based on British Vickers or U.S. Christie designs. Soviet aviation technology was mainly American (except for French Potez and Italian seaplane designs). The guns were Krupp, but the trucks were Ford, Hercules, and Brandt — all from plants built by American firms just five years previously.
After this, in 1937, Stalin's Red Army purge killed 30,000 — the cream of the Soviet military.
Two years later, in 1939, Russia attacked Finland. Cost: 273,000 Finns and Russians killed. In 1939 or 1940, the Soviets murdered 30,000 Polish officers at Katyn.
Persecution of Russians and the peoples of Eastern Europe continued after World War II, assisted by the British-American Operation Keelhaul.
In 1946 the Ukrainians tried unsuccessfully to fight for independence, after having fought the Germans for four years. One after another the East European peoples attempted to overthrow domestic communism, which survived only with Russian help and American inaction. In 1956 there was another Polish revolt and a major outbreak in Hungary in which 25,000 Hungarians and 7,000 Russians lost their lives.
In the early 1960s the Soviets began to look beyond their satellites, secure in the knowledge that the United States would not intervene to protect human rights in these countries. Then came the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962: the missile-carrying Soviet ships had engines manufactured by Denmark. Then the airborne Congo adventure. Then the Vietnamese War, in which Soviet advisers, as in the Spanish Civil War in 1936, entered at an early stage. In 1965, the year 1,369 Americans were killed in South Vietnam, 2,500 Russian engineers and experts were at work in North Vietnam, and Russian arms were even then in widespread use by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese. This was also the year in which President Johnson decided to expand trade with the Soviets in the guise of "building bridges for peace."
The continuing crisis in the Middle East has been directly dependent upon the supply of Soviet arms to militant Arab countries and guerillas.
In the I980s Soviet weapons and supplies keep wars going in Africa and Central America. Famine plagued Ethiopia is stocked with Soviet weapons. In Afghanistan we have a Soviet invasion of an independent country, Marxist Angola and Marxist Mozambique are supplied with Soviet weapons and advisers. In Angola the Soviets are in an unholy alliance with Chevron-Gulf. This oil multinational supplies the foreign exchange to pay the Cuban troops. The Gulf Cabinda installations are protected by Soviet and Cuban troops.
In Korea we have direct killing of Americans with Soviet weapons. The American casualty roll in the Korean War was 33,730 killed and 103,284 wounded. Of the 10,218 American prisoners taken by the Communist forces, only 3,746 returned to the United States: 21 men refused repatriation and 6,451 American servicemen are listed as "murdered or died."57
The 130,000-man North Korean Army, which crossed the South Korean border in June 1950, was trained, supported, and equipped by the Soviet Union, and included a brigade of Soviet T-34 medium tanks (with U.S. Christie suspensions).58 The artillery tractors were direct metric copies of Caterpillar tractors. The trucks came from the Henry Ford-Gorki plant or the ZIL plant. The North Korean Air Force has 180 Yak planes built in plants with U.S. Lend-Lease equipment. These Yaks were later replaced by MiG-15s powered by Russian copies of Rolls-Royce jet engines sold to the Soviet Union in 1947.
Between 1961 and 1964 the American casualty roll in Vietnam was relatively light, only 267 killed, and U.S.-Soviet trade was at a low level.
In 1965 the Soviets stepped up the flow of military supplies and equipment to North Vietnam. President Johnson stepped up the flow of technology to the Soviets. The American toll mounted rapidly, demonstrating the absurdity of the trade levels in peace agreement:
|1965||1,369 killed||3,308 wounded|
|1966||5,008 killed||16,526 wounded|
|1967||9,378 killed||32,371 wounded|
|1968||14,592 killed||46,799 wounded|
After President Nixon took office in 1969 and initiated detente with transfers of military technology, the American toll increased:
|1969||9,414 killed||32,940 wounded|
|1970||4,422 killed||15,211 wounded|
|1971||1,380 killed||4,767 wounded|
|1972||300 killed||587 wounded|
About 80 percent of the armaments and supplies for the Vietnamese War came from the Soviet Union. Yet a key part of President Nixon's policy was the transfer of technology to the USSR which aids Soviet war potential.
Soviet military aid has been fundamental for the North Viets. In September 1967 the Institute for Strategic Studies in London reported that the Soviets sent numbers of MiG-17 and MiG-21 fighters, Ilyushin-28 light bombers, transport aircraft, helicopters, 6,000 antiaircraft guns (one-half radar controlled), surface-to-air (guideline) missiles, 200-250 missile launchers, several thousand air defense machine guns, and a training mission of about 1,000 men to North Vietnam.
This aid was confirmed in April 1967 by former Assistant Secretary of Defense John T. McNaughton, i.e. the Soviets supplied the "sophisticated equipment in the field of antiaircraft defense." Loss of 915 U.S. planes over North Vietnam between February 1965 (the date of the first U.S. air operations over North Vietnam) and the bombing halt of November 1, 1968 testifies to the accuracy and utility of the Soviet equipment. After President Nixon took office in January 1969 and expanded technical transfers, losses mounted, a total of more than 4,000 U.S. aircraft by the end of 1972.
Support by the Soviet Union for North Vietnamese aggression in South Vietnam was no secret. Brezhnev, on his visit to Bulgaria on May 12, 1967, demonstrated the solidarity of supposedly polycentralist-socialist East Europe on the question of Vietnam:
You know well, comrades, that the Soviet Union is rendering great economic, military and political assistance to fighting Vietnam. This assistance is merged with the assistance coming from Bulgaria and other fraternal socialist countries. We are rendering it in response to a command of the heart, as people reared by the Communist party in a spirit of proletarian internationalism, in a spirit of high understanding of class tasks. And let the aggressors know this: fighting Vietnam will never be left without the help of its true friends. Our answer has been and will continue to be commensurate with the requirements of an effective rebuff to the unbridled imperialist interventionists.59
The Soviet Union provided both the military and the economic means for the North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam. At the key juncture of the Vietnamese War, the Soviets were not only rapidly increasing their supplies, but were receiving in return less than one-seventh the value of the supplies in Vietnamese products. The balance was Soviet "Lend-Lease" for the takeover of South Vietnam.
The Soviet Union has truly been the "arsenal for revolution" in Vietnam, and as Shirley Sheibla wrote in Barron's Weekly, the United States has been the "arsenal for communism" in the Soviet Union."60
As the material presented in this book shows, the "arsenal for revolution" was built by Western firms and has been kept in operation with "peaceful trade." When all the rhetoric about "peaceful trade" is boiled out, it comes down to a single inescapable fact: the guns, the ammunition, the weapons, the transportation systems that killed Americans in Korea and Vietnam came from the American-subsidized economy of the Soviet Union. The trucks that carried these weapons down the Ho Chi Minh trail came from American-built plants. The ships that carried the supplies to Sihanoukville and Haiphong and later to Angola and Nicaragua came from NATO allies and used propulsion systems that our State Department could have kept out of Soviet hands — indeed, the Export Control Act and the Battle Act, ignored by State, required exactly such action. The technical capability to wage the Korean and Vietnamese wars originated on both sides in Western, mainly American, technology, and the political illusion of "peaceful trade" promoted by the deaf mute blindmen was the carrier for this war-making technology.
As U.S. casualties in Vietnam mounted, the lessons of history were clear for those with eyes to see — reduce trade with the USSR and all suppliers to North Vietnam, and so provide an incentive for the other side to decelerate the conflict. (This is not hindsight; the writer made this argument, in print, in the mid-1960s and throughout the 1970s. See Appendix C). Both the Johnson and Nixon administrations irrationally and illogically chose to expand trade — the carrier for the technology required to fuel the North Vietnamese side of the war — and so voted to continue the war.
What is less obvious is that all Administrations have been under heavy political pressure from the deaf mute blindmen to adopt this suicidal policy.
Are the Deaf Mute Blindmen Guilty of Treason?
The Soviet record is clear. Since 1917 the Soviets have in philosophy and action held that the United States is the main enemy. The Soviets talk as if the United States is an enemy. And Soviets consistently act as if the United States is the main enemy. We also require a $300 billion a year defense budget to protect ourselves from the Soviets.
What does the U.S. Constitution say about treason? Here is Article III, Section 3:
United States Constitution
ARTICLE III, SECTION 3
TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES SHALL CONSIST ONLY IN LEVYING WAR AGAINST THEM, OR IN ADHERING TO THEIR ENEMIES, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT. NO PERSON SHALL BE CONVICTED OF TREASON UNLESS ON THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES TO THE SAME OVERT ACT, OR IN CONFESSION IN OPEN COURT.
THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO DECLARE THE PUNISHMENT OF TREASON, BUT NO ATTAINDER OF TREASON SHALL WORK CORRUPTION OF BLOOD, OR FORFEITURE, EXCEPT DURING THE LIFE OF THE PERSON ATTAINTED.
Treason is defined in the Constitution as giving any enemy of the United States "aid and comfort." Does the record described in the previous chapters constitute "aid and comfort"?
Obviously the record reflects considerably more than "aid and comfort." The Soviets would have no effective modern military establishment without the assistance rendered by the deaf mute blindmen — on credit at that.
The difference between 1985 and 1974 when we declined to suggest treason as an explanation is that there has now been a full decade for the deaf mute blindmen to acquaint themselves with the facts, and draw back from those actions that could be interpreted as treason.
On the contrary, not only have the subsidies expanded, but they have openly included military technology. Henry Kissinger, Chase Manhattan Bank and the suppliers of the Kama River plant KNEW the plant had potential to manufacture military trucks. Henry Kissinger and the Bryant Chucking Grinder Company KNEW the Centalign-B machine was used to machine the races for precision ball bearings used in Soviet missiles. It is this fact of CLEAR KNOWLEDGE that pushes us towards a conclusion of treason. If a person willfully, i.e. knowingly and deliberately supplies military technology to any enemy, then he must under any definition of treason be guilty of that crime.
To conclude: if "aid and comfort" to any enemy is treason, then the deaf mute blindmen are guilty of treason.
We now have the formidable task of bringing these gentlemen to the bar of justice to publicly answer for their private and concealed actions.
51"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.."
52Congressional Record, vol. 74, p. 7049.
53David J. Dallin, quoted in The Real Soviet Russia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971), p.
54U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Soviet Political Agreements and Results, 4th printing (Washington, 1964).
55For the early years there is a State Department Staff report, Interference of Representatives or Employees of the Soviet Government Abroad in the Internal Affairs of the Countries in Which They Are Stationed.
56D.C. Warr, "Soviet Military Aid to the Spanish Republic in the Civil War 1936-1938," Slavonic and East European Review, June 1960, pp. 536-41. Also see: Uri Ra'anan, The USSR Arms the Third World (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1956).
57R. Ernest Dupuy and Trevor N. Dupuy, Encyclopaedia of Military History (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), p. 1219.
58Antony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1930-1945 (see Bibliography).
59Pravda, May 13, 1967.
60Jan. 4., 1971.