By Dr. Harold Pease, Ph.D.
Professor of History at Palo Verde College

Those of us who teach political science on the college and university level find ourselves seriously handicapped by the lack of textbooks and carefully prepared historical research on one of the most important phenomena of our time, namely, the amazing alliance which has been growing for more than half a century between the leaders of the world-wide Communist movement and the leaders of some of the most powerful banks and industries of Europe and America.

That such an alliance should even exist, came as an intellectual shock to this writer. It seemed irrational, an ideological contraction, a conflict of interests. Nevertheless, the more I have researched the matter, the more convinced I have become that the alliance is not only a reality, but that also herein might be found the Gordian knot which must be cut before we can solve some of the world's most critical problems.

A recent announcement calling the West's attention to the existence of this alliance came unexpectedly from the heart of the Communist world itself.


On June 30, 1975, Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, the famed Russian author, lecturer, historian, intellectual, and recipient of a Nobel Prize, gave one of the most important addresses delivered in this country during the Twentieth Century. To a select and packed audience in the ballroom of the Washington Hilton, Solzhenitsyn advised his listeners of the existence of an amazing and mysterious alliance, "at first glance a strange one, a surprising one - but if you think about it, one which is well grounded and easy to understand. This is the alliance between our Communist leaders and your Capitalists." Solzhenitsyn explained that the alliance of which he spoke was not new. He said the great Capitalists of the United States assisted Lenin "in the first years of the Revolution," and that since then "we observe continuous and steady support by the businessmen of the West of the Soviet Communist leaders." (Congressional Record, 8, July, 1975, pp. 11951-11956).


The Russian told those assembled that the Soviet economy is so clumsy and awkward that it will never overcome its own difficulties by itself. He charged that the enslaved Russian masses could have thrown off Communism several times had not Western assistance been poured into the USSR to sustain the Communist leadership. He pointed out that "the major construction projects in the initial five-year plan were built exclusively with American technology and materials. Even Stalin recognized that two- thirds of what was needed was obtained from the West. And if today the Soviet Union has powerful military and police forces ... used to crush our movement for freedom in the Soviet Union ... we have Western capital to thank for this also." (Ibid.)

The movement for freedom behind the Iron Curtain is very real, according to this famed Russian author, because Marxism is viewed with disdain by the people; "In the Soviet Union today, Marxism has fallen so low it's simply an object of contempt. No serious person in our-country today, even students in schools, can talk about Marxism without smiling. (Ibid.)

The speech in Washington, D.C., was followed ten days later by another address in New York. Again Solzhenitsyn emphasized that the "whole existence of our slave owners from beginning to end, has depended on Western economic assistance." He emphasized the plight of the Russian people by telling those assembled:

"We are slaves there from birth. We are born slaves. I'm not young anymore, and I myself was born a slave; this is even more true for those who are younger. We are slaves, but we are striving for freedom. You, however, were born free. If so, then why do you help our slave owners?

"In my last address I only requested one thing and I make the same request now: When they bury us in the ground alive ... please do not send them shovels. Please do not send them the most modern earth-moving equipment." ("The Strangled Cry of Solzhenitsyn," National Review, 29 Aug. 1975, p. 937).


Solzhenitsyn explained that the Russian people are not told that the assistance comes from the West. Instead, they are continually taught a hatred for the West, Detente, then, is totally one-sided.

"Our country is taking your assistance but in the schools they are teaching and in newspapers they are writing and in the lectures they are saying, `Look at the Western world, it's beginning to rot. Look at the economy of the Western world, it's coming to an end. The great predictions of Marx, Engels, and Lenin are coming true. Capitalism is breathing its last. It's already dead. It has demonstrated once and for all the triumph of Communism.'" (Ibid., p. 938)

What about these charges? Are they found in fact? Is the West, notably the United States, responsible for building and sustaining the Communist enemy, which has now consumed nearly one-half of the world, or has the famed Russian scholar over-extended his claim? Article III, Section 3, of the United States Constitution defines treason as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." Certainly if Solzhenitsyn's view of history is correct our leadership has a lot of explaining to do.


Let us begin by examining statements made by prominent members of Congress which appear to give credibility to the Solzhenitsyn claim. On March 6, 1974, Congressman John M. Ashbrook informed his colleagues of the irony of trade with the USSR

"... U.S. technical trade with the Soviet Union and other East European countries has `gained significant momentum' since the May, 1972 Moscow summit conference and will undoubtedly continue to increase at a gradual rate. The American share of Soviet imports of plants and equipment from the West is now running about 20 percent of the total. It is ironic that while American businessmen are trading hundreds of millions of dollars for plants and equipment to the Soviet Union, the Administration is asking for an increased defense budget to meet the Soviet military threat-a threat which, in part, is being built with American technology." (Cong. Rec., March 6, 1974, p. E1176).


Congressman Steve Symms, equally alarmed, minced no words in verbalizing dissatisfaction with present trade arrangements. He began:

"Few Americans fully appreciate the extent to which their tax dollars are being used to finance their own destruction. The dealings of the Export-Import Bank are a good example. U.S. `loans' to the Soviet Union through the bank now total over 760 million dollars to finance projects like constructing the world's largest truck plant on the Kama River. Only two weeks ago an additional $67.5 million of your money was provided for this project, along with a 20 million dollar loan for a Russian acetic acid plant.

"Another $180 million is now being earmarked for a chemical complex in the USSR and $49.5 million for a gas exploration project in Eastern Siberia."

The basic problem, according to Symms, is that we are arming the very enemy who intends to destroy us. Symms summarized this situation:

"... U.S. tax dollars are not only propping up a ruthless dictatorship but they are helping to arm our enemy to the teeth. While America is bust building factories and other valuable strategic facilities on Russian soil, the Kremlin is diverting proportionally more of its own resources toward sophisticated offensive weaponry. It makes one wonder whose side the Export-Import Bank officials are really on. Modern-day liberals often refer to these kinds of suicidal give-aways as `meaningful cooperation in the spirit of detente.' It used to be called treason." (American Security Council, Washington Report, 11-15 Mar. 1974).


Congressman Richard H. Ichord, former Chairman of the House Committee on Internal Security (abolished January 1975) and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, responded similarly:

"We are especially alarmed by the report that the Bank (Export-Import Bank) is on the verge of granting $49 million in credit to the Soviet Union for exploration of Eastern Siberian gas fields. We believe that American financing of Soviet gas exploration at this particular time in history, especially at an interest rate of 6% (which is in effect to be subsidised by the American taxpayer), smacks not only of poor business judgment but suggests a disregard for our national security. Every nation's defense capacity is directly related to its energy resources. The real question is why do we spend some $80 billion a year to maintain such a large military establishment.... This has enabled the Soviet Union to engage in the largest peacetime military buildup in the history of man. We cannot afford to adopt any trade or credit policies that will allow the Soviets to further expand their military machine." (American Security Council, Washington Report, Feb. 1974, pp. 1-3).


Senator Richard Schweiker also viewed such trade concessions as a "$6.1 billion gas exploration project in Western Siberia and a $49.5 million oil exploration project in the Yakutsk area of Eastern Siberia" as being against the national interest. As with Ichord, Schweiker contended that "lending American capital at low (6%) interest for such projects when there is an energy crisis in the United States" is an illogical concession. (L.A. Times, March 9, 1974, part 3, p. 8). Why is the Export-Import Bank charging 6% interest when the prime rate is up to 10%? The problem of the Russian exchange is greater amplified when one realizes that "when Congress is depreciating the dollar at 5% per year, you have to charge 10% to make even five. If a buyer borrows dollars at 6% for five years, and in that period the dollar has depreciated 25%, the buyer has only paid 1% per year for his loan." We must not forget that the taxpayer pays the interest subsidy. Should the buyer default, the U.S. taxpayer once again takes the loss. (Congressional Record, Feb. 19, 1974, p. E694).


Even if America could forget the rise in the cost of bread to the American consumer as a result of the recent Russian wheat deal, estimated at approximately $290 million, and the extra cost to the beef industry for feed grains which inevitably is reflected in increased beef prices, also passed to the consumer, there are other objections. Congressman Philip Crane mentioned one in particular before commenting on the dangers of increased technological trade with the enemy.

"What happened in the wheat deal, of course, was that the United States sold the Soviet Union and Communist China wheat at a low, subsidised price, with the difference being made up by American taxpayers. As a result, the Soviet Union was saved from famine, and was saved from having to reform its system of forced collectivization.... "The kind of trade the Soviets want, and which we have been willing to participate in, is not trade for consumer goods, such as refrigerators, radios, television sets, and automobiles. They want heavy-industry help, such as machine tools, ball bearings, and precision calibrators. These have military potential, and will hardly improve the living standards of the Russian people....

"To provide the Soviet Union with the sophisticated technology it needs to surpass us, while not demanding any concessions in return, and subsidizing the transaction in addition, is a one- sided policy designed solely to our own detriment." (Congressional Record, July 10, 1973, p. H5896).


On July 10, 1973 Representative Earl F. Landgrebe told colleagues assembled in the House of Representatives:

"... We are playing into the hands of the Communist rules when we come to their rescue with food and other products of this great free nation, when their whole problem is the fact that the people are trying to lift the Communist domination and pressure from their shoulders by refusing to produce.

"I would say that America is walking right into this situation and actually prolonging the control of the good people of Russia, and the Russian people are good people. But, as I say, they are under slavery by their Communist rulers. And when we make these deals with the Communist rulers we are perpetuating the slavery of the Russian people." (Ibid., p. H5894)


But what, more precisely, are these trade items that are supposed to be so dangerous to our national security? Such information is not readily accessible. The Congressional Record of February 7, 1974, gives us a chart showing some of the more strategically dangerous trade items transferred through the U.S. Export-Import Bank.

                                             Loan in Millions   U.S. Value

Submersible electric pumps. . . . . . . . . . . .  11.6 . . . .   25.9
Plant to produce tableware and dishware . . . . .   3.1 . . . .    6.8
Kama River Truck plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . .  86.4 . . . .  192.1
250 circular knitting machines. . . . . . . . . .   2.5 . . . .    5.6
Second tableware plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9.8 . . . .   21.8
2 assembly lines for manufacturing pistons. . . .   6.4 . . . .   14.3
38 gas reinjection compressors. . . . . . . . . .  11.8 . . . .   26.1
Iron ore pellet plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16.2 . . . .   36.0
Machining friction drums. . . . . . . . . . . . .   2.7 . . . .    6.0
Transfer line for manufacturing pistons . . . . .   7.0 . . . .   15.7

                                             Loan in Millions   U.S. Value
Automotive component manufacturing processes. . .  20.7 . . . .   46.0
Acetic acid plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18.0 . . . .   40.0
Canal building machinery. . . . . . . . . . . . .   2.9 . . . .    6.6
Valve making machinery. . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2.1 . . . .    4.7
International Trade Center. . . . . . . . . . . .  36.0 . . . .   80.0

                                             Loan in Millions   U.S. Value
Chemical complex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180.0 . . . .  400.0
Additional equipment for Kama River
 truck project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  67.5 . . . .  150.0
Minister of Geology, Vakutsk gas
 exploration plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  49.5 . . . .  110.0
Oil pipeline pressure regulators. . . . . . . . .   4.5 . . . .   10.0

(Congressional Record, Feb. 7, 1974, p. S1497).

Can the problem be described in terms of capital outlay? This information is not easily obtainable from government agencies, but Congressman Steve Symms was able to give us some idea of the problem as of October 16, 1973.

"So far in 1973, credits and credit guarantees from the U.S. Export-Import Bank in the amount of $202.6 million have been made available to the Soviet Union. The credits carried an interest rate of 6 percent, and grace periods, before repayment begins, of up to 10 years. These transactions supplement the $750 million line of credit for grain purchases made available in 1972 by the Commodity Credit Corporation. In addition to these actual credits, major transactions involving the Soviets and American firms that have been announced this year envision U.S. Export-Import Bank credits of approximately $3 billion." (Quoted by the Freemen Report, Feb. 15, 1974, p.1).

If Symms' records are complete, the United States granted the soviets extended loans worth nearly one billion dollars during the months in question.


The information presented is especially disturbing in view of the comments made by Senator Henry Jackson to colleagues on the Senate floor:

"And just this past week, reliable reports have reached the West that Secretary Brezhnev has told Eastern European Communist leaders that improved relations with the West are, in fact, a tactic to permit the Soviet bloc to establish its superiority in the next 12 to 15 years. Tactical flexibility is, of course, a prime component of Leninist political doctrine. Will we find that, in 15 years, the Soviet Union has established a position of superiority which will allow it to disregard detente altogether?" (Congressional Record, Sept. 20, 1973, p. S17053).

But according to Solzhenitsyn, the free world built and maintained the Communist slave world almost from the beginning. Several of the congressmen gave substance, in part, to his claim. Perhaps the most pointed comment came from Congressman Steve Symms who said, "... History has proven that the Soviet Union's planned industry feeds on the industrial freedom of the West. It would long ago have died a natural death, had it not been for the repeated injections of lifeblood that are still being pumped into it today." (Congressional Record, Oct. 16, 1973, as quoted by the Freeman Report, 15 Feb. 1974, p. 1).


Dr. Larry McDonald (Missing since he was aboard the flight of KLM 007, while Richard Nixon was ordered to get off that same flight in Nome, Alaska) has probably been the most outspoken Congressman opposing "aid and comfort to the enemy." Quoting from the report of the Committee on Appropriations (House Report 94-53, to accompany H.R. 4592, March 10, 1975) McDonald informed his colleagues that:

"... the United States has provided $1,033,400,000 in foreign aid and assistance to the Soviet Union from 1946 through 1974. Presumably this was done under authority other than the Foreign Assistance Act, which prohibits such aid.

"When you also consider the so-called lend-lease program - so- called because as things turned out it was neither lend nor lease but outright charity to the tune of $11 to $12 billion - and the passing over our post-World War II occupational currency production capability, the true figure of aid to the heartland of totalitarian communism would be somewhere between $30 to $40 billion. Most Americans are staggered upon learning that the USSR has been the No. 1 beneficiary of U.S. aid in this century....

"All of this certainly destroys the accepted view that the United States has an anti-communist foreign policy." (Congressional Record, Oct. 3, 1975, p. E5215).


McDonald, quoting from a review of the book National Suicide, by Dr. Antony Sutton (the leading authority on East-West trade), continues:

"... It was primarily U.S. technology that kept the Bolsheviks on their feet after their 1917 coup d' etat, that maintained them through the Depression, and that has kept them alive to this date....

"The major areas of technical assistance to the Soviet Union, which have been directly or indirectly used in military applications are: (1) weapons, including explosives, ammunition and guns; (2) tanks, trucks and armored cars; (3) ships; (4) airplanes; (5) space technology; (6) missiles; and (7) computers.

"In the area of weapons, aid was forthcoming from the United States even before the Bolsheviks had consolidated their hold on Russia after the coup." (Ibid.).

Solzhenitsyn could not have said it more clearly.


Apparently there is substance to the Solzhenitsyn claim, but how much? Obviously, trade with the enemy is another one of those obscure areas where Americans have been poorly briefed. Most find it difficult to accept our wheat give-aways, but how will they react when they are told that this trade with Communism includes much more? We may never know, since the major media - press, radio and TV - have played down or completely ignored the dark implications of this enemy-building business.


An examination of our trade history with the Communists gives strong evidence that the Solzhenitsyn claim is not in the least exaggerated. Returning to the Bolshevik revolution, the reader might be surprised to find that the Russians under the Tsar were far more advanced, prior to 1917, than we had thought. "Airplanes and automobiles of indigenous Russian design were produced in quantity before the Bolshevik revolution. Although industrialization was restricted to a few population centers, it utilized modern, efficient plants operating on scales comparable to those elsewhere in the world. Further, there were obvious signs of indigenous Russian technology in chemicals, aircraft, automobiles, turbines, and railroad equipment. "Not only did such technology exist, but it was left almost totally undisturbed by the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. What then caused the economic calamity which followed 1921? One thing is certain. It was not brought about by absence of operable productive facilities." (Antony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930. Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, p. 344).


Before we speak of the economic calamity brought on almost solely by the disastrous programs of the Bolsheviks, let us first trace their rise to power. Revolutions are expensive. There is considerable evidence that the Bolsheviks received enormous grants from private individuals in Germany and the United States.

"One of the chief German financiers of the Russian Revolution was M. M. Warburg, who made millions available to the Russian Communists through a bank in Sweden. In America, Jacob Schiff, a partner and brother-in-law of Warburg, contributed $20 million to the Russian Revolution." (Paper Relating to the Foreign Relations of the U.S.-Russia, 1918. House Document no. 1868, U.S. Government Printing Office. See also extensive treatment of this question in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, by Antony C. Sutton, Arlington House, New York, 1974).


Economic chaos followed the advent of the Communists to power. Within months fields lay untilled, and factories stood idle. Production sank to one-seventh of what it had been before the war when the Tsar was in power.

(Werner Keller, East Minus West Equals Zero, G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1961, p. 195). "By August 1922 the Soviet economy was at the point of collapse." Lenin, Bogdanov, Arsky and Krassin each, according to Antony Sutton, acknowledged that their system had failed. (Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930, p. 345). 1921-22 is remembered by the Russian people as the worst famine in Russian history up to that date. "The famine that struck large areas, particularly on the Volga and in the Ukraine, in 1921-1922, was caused only to a small degree by drought and other natural phenomena. In the main it was the consequence of the political developments of the preceding few years.... It was a man-made famine. By the summer of 1921 the disaster had reached such proportions, and the prospects for the future appeared so bleak, that the government was forced to deviate from the accepted methods of propaganda and admit the facts." (Facts on Communism: The Soviet Union from Lenin to Khrushchev, Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 1st Session, Dec. 1960, p. 130).


It was apparent that the people could not have with stood much more. Revolt was probable. In order to save Communism, Lenin was forced to slow down his radical socialization of Russia. Reluctantly Lenin called upon the mighty industrial powers of the West for help. They responded by sending engineers, research scientists, and technologists. According to Werner Keller, one of the leading authorities on East-West trade, Lenin hated the capitalists but found it advantageous to use them. (Keller, East Minus West Equals Zero, p. 195). The Russian leader is credited with having said:

"They will furnish credits which will serve as a means to support the Communists parties, and by supplying us with materials and techniques which are not available to us, they will rebuild our war industry which is essential to our future attacks on our own suppliers. In other words, they will be laboring to prepare their own suicide." (Ibid., p. 201).


The Germans were the most responsible for rebuilding the Russian industry. Plants unmanned since the Communists seized power began to function. Much of the assistance came as a result of the German Trade Agreement of 1921, and the Papallo economic, military, and trade protocols. Germans assumed leadership in most large industrial and mining enterprises. "As late as 1928, Soviet industry was run by a partnership of German and prerevolutionary engineers independent of nominal Party control." (Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930, p. 346).

The assistance of the Germans was tremendous and without question saved Lenin and the Communist system.

"The first modern aircraft factory in Russia was built by the German Junkers concern. Thus, Soviet air power was born. Large numbers of Soviet engineers and workers were trained; many hundreds of Russian pilots were thoroughly instructed by German pilots; and the first Russian airline network was created." (Keller, East Minus West Equals Zero, p. 202).


Meanwhile, the American Relief Administration (A.R.A.) headed by Herbert Hoover, poured 700,000 tons of food and supplies worth $60 million into Russia. (Facts on communism, pp. 133-134). What America did was merciful, magnanimous, and in good faith, but it relieved Lenin and his followers from their greatest fear - a successful counter-revolution because of the famine. A much better program for the United States would have been to await the counter-revolution and assist a free Russian populace with food and supplies rather than to insure Lenin's retention of power. As it turned out, the Russian people were denied the opportunity to free themselves, and the West now fears an enemy which it helped to build. Ironically, the memory of this great and merciful American deed has been stamped out of Russian literature. Equally ironic is the fact that half of Germany is now held captive by the Soviet government which the Germans insisted upon preserving.


American technical leadership began to replace German leadership in rebuilding the Soviet Union.

"Of the agreements in force in mid-1929, 27 were with German companies, 15 were with United States firms and the remaining ones were primarily with British and French firms. In the last six months of 1929, the number of technical agreements with U.S. firms jumped to more than 40." (Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930, pp. 346-347).

The new program was announced, however, only "after a sequence of construction and technical-assistance contracts with Western companies had been let. The Freyn-Gipromez technical agreement for design and construction of giant metallurgical plants is economically and technically the most important." (Ibid., p. 347).


During the early thirties, the amount and type of "aid and comfort" to the Soviet Union was almost unbelievable. In 1930 the Ford Motor Company established the Russian motor car industry by constructing a factory "capable of turning out 140,000 cars a year." By the end of the decade the factory, at Gorki, was one of the largest in the world. Ford also provided training for the Russians in assembling automobiles "plus patent licenses, technical assistance, and advice," and "an inventory of spare parts." (Keller, East Minus West Equals Zero, pp. 208-209, 215-216). Americans also built, in the Soviet Union, the largest iron and steel works in the world; patterned after the city of Gary, Indiana. The huge steel complex, built at Maginitogorsk, was constructed by a Cleveland firm. (Ibid., pp. 209-210).


The largest tractor factory in the world was another American contribution to Soviet technology.

"Tractors were a necessity to modernize Soviet agriculture. A Detroit engineer designed and constructed a tractor factory without parallel in any other country. The assembly works were 2,000 feet long and 650 feet wide, covering an area of thirty acres. Twenty-one American football fields would fit into just one building, with locker rooms for the players. The tractors produced were copies of the American Caterpillar Company, but there were no arrangements made for payment for use of the patent. Russia merely bought one sample and copied it. The factory was so designed that production could be adopted almost overnight to the production of another less innocuous commodity - tanks." (Ibid., p. 213).


The largest hydroelectric installation and dam in the world was built at Dnieproges, Soviet Union, by Col. Hugh Cooper, famed for having built the dam at Muscle Shoals, Tennessee. "The power plant increased Russia's hydroelectric system output by six times, and produced more power than Niagara Falls." (Ibid., pp. 216-217). According to Antony Sutton:

"Two agreement with Orgametal by other American companies completed assistance in the heavy engineering field. The electrical industry had the services of International General Electric (in two agreements), the Cooper Engineering Company and RCA for the construction of long range powerful radio stations. The stuart, James and Cooke, Inc. contracts with various coal and mining trusts were supplemented by specialized assistance contracts, such as the Oglebay, Norton Company aid agreement for the iron ore mines and the Southwestern Engineering agreement in the non-ferrous industries. The chemical industry turned to Du Pont and Nitrogen Engineering for synthetic nitrogen, ammonia and nitric acid technology; to Westvaco for chlorine; and to H. Gibbs to supplement I.G. Ferben aid in the Aniline Dye Trust. This was supplemented by more specialized agreements from other countries; ball bearings from Sweden and Italy; plastics, artificial silk, and aircraft from France; and turbines and electrical industry technology from the United Kingdom.

"The penetration of this technology was complete. At least 95 percent of the industrial structure received this assistance." (Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930, pp. 347-348).


It is difficult to over-estimate the damage to the free world by this type of trade. It was also during the thirties that the Soviet Union was "allowed to purchase unassembled U.S. battleships. Carbon copies of American battleships were assembled in the Soviet Union, according to plans drawn up by American naval architects." The latest industrial equipment used in producing ammonia was shipped by such companies as Nortrogen Engineering and Du Pont. The State Department which authorized this "peaceful trade," over-looked the factor that one of the by-products in the process of producing ammonia was "nitric acid, which is an essential ingredient in explosives." (Congressional Record, Oct. 3, 1975, pp. E5215-E5216).


The industrial plants built in Russia by the United States between 1929- 1932 were

"... far larger than units designed and built by the same construction firms in the rest of the world and, in addition, combining separate shops or plants for the manufacture of inputs and spare parts. The Urals-Emash combination multiplied Soviet electrical equipment manufacturing capacity by a factor of seven; the KHEMZ at Kharkov, designed by the General Electric Company, had a turbine-manufacturing capacity two and one-half greater than the main G.E. Schenectady plant; and Magnitogorsk, a replica of the U.S. Steel plant at Gary, Indiana, was the largest iron and steel plant in the world. When the Soviet claim these units are the `largest in the world' they do not exaggerate; it would of course be impolitic of them to emphasize their Western origins." (Anthony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1930-1945, Hoover Institute Press, Stanford University, 1971, p. 343).

Even if American firms were responsible for much of the design and layout of these and other enormous industrial complexes "probably one-half of the equipment installed was German." Even so, much of what was manufactured by the Germans was according to "American design on Soviet account. In quantity, American-built equipment was probably second and British third." (Ibid.).

The thirties was a time of adjustment to this massive infusion of Western Industrial might. Becoming accustomed to this tremendous windfall was not an easy task for the bulky, awkward economic programs of the communists. The challenge was to become familiar with this industrial overload and convert it, as quickly as possible, to military strength. Unashlicht, Vice President of the Revolutionary Military Soviet, stated:

"We must try to ensure that industry can as quickly as possible be adapted to serving military needs...; [therefore] it is necessary to carefully structure the Five-Year Plan for maximum co-operation and interrelationship between military and civilian industry. It is necessary to plan for duplications of technological processes and absorb foreign assistance...; such are the fundamental objectives." (Provado, no. 98, 28 Apr. 1929, as cited by Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1930-1945, p. 344).

After 1925 the Soviets began squeezing the Germans out by "withdrawing one concession after another and breaking the agreements made in the original contracts."

No country had any meaningful guarantees that Lenin would not do the same thing to them. Them most sophisticated gold mining equipment in the world was placed in the USSR by the English. After the goldfields began to produce, the English were ousted. Money from the Lena Field Gold Mine provided much of the capital to pay the Great Capitalists for building the industrial capacity of the USSR.


The Russians preferred the most advanced technology in the world and favored the country that could provide it, usually the United States. Between 1921 and 1925 "$37 million of machinery and equipment were pumped into the Soviet economy by American industry." Of course, at the time there were no diplomatic relations between the two countries. Some of the trade agreements made between the Soviet government and American industrialists are very interesting. "U.S. firms acquired gold-prospecting rights, the Standard Oil Company won an oil-bearing concession, Averell Harriman built mines to work manganese ore deposits, General Electric sold Moscow electric equipment to the valve of over $20 million, and other American firms set about reequipping Russian industry." (Keller, East Minus West Equals Zero, pp. 198-199).

Communism was saved. Now Stalin was ready to resume the social and economic revolution in Russia. A "Five-Year Plan" was announced in 1928 to replace the program which had so completely crippled Russia seven years earlier.


The primary objective of each plant was to satisfy military requirements. "It is ironic, from the Western viewpoint, that contracts viewed as serving the cause of world peace (Henry Ford, for example, elected to build the Gorki plant to advance peace) should have been utilized immediately for military purposes." (Ibid.).

The seriousness of the influence of this industrial giveaway upon our national security again cannot be overstated. Western assistance between 1917 and 1930 "was the single most important factor first in the sheer survival of the Soviet regime, and secondly in industrial progress to prerevolutnionary levels." (Anthony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1945-1965, p. 412).

Perhaps Congressman John Rarick best summarized the extent of the damage to U.S. national security when he said: "The factories and steel mills that U.S. aid built in Russia during the 1930s were used later to create the munitions that killed American GIs in Korea and Vietnam." (Congressional Record, 27 June, 1973, p. E4409).


Yet, even with the greatest economic blood transfusion in recorded history, the Communist polices stifled the program so that by 1933, Russia was on the verge of financial collapse again. Once more the people might have revolted, but at this most inappropriate time the United States, rather than awaiting the overthrow of Communism and assisting insurgents, crushed any such freedom movement by extending diplomatic recognition to the USSR. This gave the Communist government legitimacy, prestige, and an improved credit among nations. (W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Communist, The Reviewer, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1959, p. 125). The Communist grip on Russia was preserved and the West forfeited her second opportunity to assist in the removal of the Soviet yoke from the oppressed Russian people.


The House Committee on Un-American Activities, in a two-volume study entitled Facts on Communism, described the economic crisis in Russia and the famine of 1933 which resulted from it:

"The first phase of the famine, which embraces more particularly the first seven months of 1933, was undoubtedly a human tragedy of far greater magnitude even than the famine of the years 1921- 22.

"... under such slogans as the pursuit of `saboteurs,' `counter- revolutionists,' `enemies of the State' and so on, stronger pressure was exercised to extract from the peasants the grain they still possessed." (Facts on Communism: The Soviet Union from Lenin to Khrushchev, Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, 86th Congress, Second Session, p. 165).

Both Russian famines were caused by the clumsy Communist economic system which robbed the people of any incentive to work. The best example of this comes from the laboring masses. The peasants, "discouraged and in many cases already suffering from undernourishment, showed little interest in reaping the crops which, as they felt, would be taken away from them anyway." (Ibid., p. 165).


This famine differed in one important respect from the famine of 1921-22. This time the hardened Soviet government would rather see their own people die, in some areas like flies, rather than admit the folly of their system and allow the West to save their people. They used the famine as an excuse to set up agriculture communes by waging an extermination war against the Kulaks, the peasants who owned their farms, and then ordered troops into the Ukraine to confiscate the recent grain harvest. To increase their bargaining power, the Soviet leaders sold this grain in foreign markets with the results that 5 to 10 million Russians dies of starvation.

This tragic story is one of the most unbelievable in world history. No tyrant has ever thought so little of his own people. Ironically, it "would have been possible to save the starving people with the cereals the [Soviet] government has shipped abroad." (Ibid., p. 167).


Foreigners were not allowed to "visit hunger-stricken areas," but notwithstanding, the famine was so severe that "the government's efforts to conceal it from foreign eyes or minimize it could not succeed," a former commander of the Communist Army and an eyewitness wrote to a relative in France.

"... Horrible things are happening. Entire villages are being completely depopulated by famine. One such is U____. Bodies of the dead lie for days in the houses because there is no one to remove them. They are buried coffinless in a common grave. In dark corners of back streets one finds bodies partly devoured by dogs. Dogs and cats are used for human food. Horse meat is considered a delicacy, and is sold openly.

"Human flesh has also been eaten. There have been cases where mothers killed their children. These are not tales." (Ibid., 167-168).

Dr. Schiller, German agricultural attache in Moscow, wrote of the plight of those in the more heavily stricken areas:

"... Villages have been depopulated. Politically the Cossacks have been exterminated. Cases of cannibalism were frequent. The inhabitants of Termichbek have fallen in numbers from 15,00 to 7,000. In many places the population has declined 15 per cent. The villages of Kamennobrodskaia, Lagovskaia and Sredne- Egorlytskaia are completely depopulated." (Ibid.).


Instead of remaining on the farm as ordered, the people migrated in droves to the cities hoping for food, only to find relief in death in back alleys and gutters of the streets. An eye-witness described it this way:

"... As time went on the number of starving persons lying in the streets and squares of Kharkov, Kiev, Rostov and other cities increased. Most of them were peasants who had summoned up the little strength left to them in order to reach the town. In the streets and the courtyards scenes were often witnessed which are hardly credible by European standards. While at first passers-by would take some notice of these appalling pictures of misery, this soon changed, and it was particularly shocking to see people carelessly passing the corpses of those who had died of starvation. The number of corpses was so great that they could only be removed once a day. Often no distinction was made between the corpses and those not yet dead; all were loaded on the lorries [trucks], to be flung indiscriminately into a common grave.

"This burial work was done by convicts from the local prison. From morning until evening they were busy digging the graves. Fifteen bodies were usually buried in one grave, and the number of graves is so great that these famine cemeteries often recall a stretch of sandhills." (Ibid., p. 168).


According to the House committee Report, children homeless, hungry, and sick suffered the most. Sometimes parents left their children in the cities in hope that, out of pity, someone might save them. Another witness told this story:

"It was beyond my comprehension. I would not at first believe my own eyes. Some of the children dragged themselves to their feet for the last time and gathered their remaining forces to look for something eatable in the streets. But they were so weak that they fell down and remained lying where they fell.... At Kharkov I saw a boy wasted to a skeleton lying in the middle of the street. A second boy was sitting near a heap of garbage picking egg-shells out of it. They were looking for eatable remnants of food or fruit. They perished like wild beasts.... When the famine began to haunt the villages, parents used to take their children into towns, where they left them in hope that someone would have pity on them.... Their lot was better in the towns than in the country villages, because child murder in the towns is obviously more difficult than in the country." (Ibid., pp. 168-169).

A famine of death brought on by cruel, self-negating Communist economic system could have been a voided. Instead it was intensified by Stalin, who preferred to sacrifice perhaps 10 million of his own people rather than admit folly by inviting the West to save the defective system a second time. The tragedy placed Stalin far above Hitler as a mass murderer. Not even Hitler turned on his own people in like manner and degree.


The billions of dollars worth of Western technology, indeed some of the most advanced technology in the world, had not prevented what may very well be the single most devastating famine in world history. Understandably, the Russian people were unable to endure much more and Communist leaders were planning to save the Party by overthrowing Stalin and blaming the Soviet economic fiasco on him alone. Stalin knew this and needed a way out. It was at this critical moment when, to the surprise of the rest of the world, the United States chose to recognize the USSR. As soon as Communist legitimacy was recognized by the world's greatest capitalized nation, Stalin's prestige immediately rose. The financial credit of the Communists skyrocketed overnight. In return, Maxim Litvinov assured Franklin Roosevelt that American Communists would no longer seek to overthrow the United States government! (Skousen, The Naked Communist, p. 125).


By the mid 1930s conditions began to improve significantly in Communist Russia. Recognition of the Communist government was a boost of enormous magnitude as were the hugh industrial complexes left by the Capitalists of the West. The Soviet leaders felt an entire decade would be necessary "to master the new processes, install all the equipment, train workers, bring the subsidiary plants into phase with the main plants (a major headache), and expand operations." When the Russian brag of the great gains toward industrialization made in the Five-Year Plans, they fail to mention that nearly all of it came from the West." (Anthony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1930-1945, p. 344).

The story of "aid and comfort" to the West's avowed enemy between 1936 and 19400 continued to follow the same pattern. Much of it continued to come from the United States:

"... All refineries in the Second Baku and elsewhere were built by Universal Oil Products, Badger Corporation, Lummus Company, Petroleum Engineering Corporation, Alco Products, McKee Corporation, and Kellogg Company. Advanced steel-rolling mills were supplied under the United Engineering agreement, and in 1938-39 the Tube Reducing Company installed a modern tube mill at Nikopol and supplied equipment for another. In 1937 the Vultee Corporation built an aircraft plant outside Moscow." (Ibid., p. 345).


When the Soviets became friendly with the Nazi's in 1939 and thereafter attacked Finland, technological trade from the Nazi invasion of the soviet Union in 1941 Germany machinery and technology flowed non-stop into the motherland of Communism. (Ibid.).


Stalin betrayed the United States and Great Britain when he entered into his alliance with Nazi Germany on August 23, 1939. However, it was learned after the war, from Stalin's director of espionage in Europe, General W.G. Krivitsky, that Stalin had also intended to betray Hitler when it would be advantageous to Russia to do so. (Skousen, The Naked Communist, p. 159). In fact, the most glaring example of the deceptive mentality of the Soviet leaders has been their consistent betrayal of any nation which has been foolish enough to become a Soviet ally. In this one instance, however, Hitler betrayed Stalin before Stalin could betray Hitler.

The Nazi attack swept over Eastern Russia on June 22, 1941, and caught Stalin completely by surprise. Within six months the Germans had occupied 580,000 square miles of the richest land of the Soviet Union and Nazi Panzers were within sixty miles of Moscow. (Ibid., p. 161).


Many Americans preferred to have the U.S. remain neutral and allow the two greatest enemies of human freedom to debilitate themselves in mutual combat. Such a program had both its possibilities and its limitations but taken as a whole, with the benefit of hindsight, today's world situation could not have been much worse. In any case, America came to the aid of Russia, saving her for the third time. As an ally, military trade was, perhaps, justified as it was to our advantage to assist our friends in the destruction of the common enemy, but the amount and types of Lend-Lease trade raises some serious questions. About "one-half the equipment supplied under the master agreements had reconstruction potential. The amount equalled one-third of Soviet pre-war industrial output." What is not generally known, however, is that "Lend-Lease supplies actually continued through 1947," nearly two years following the war. The Communists "ended World War II with greater industrial capacity than in 1940 - in spite of the war damage - and on a technical parity with the United States." (Anthony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1930-1945, p. 345). As a results the Soviets ended the war as the number-two power in the world.


Major George Racey Jordan, the commanding officer at Great Falls, Montana, responsible for clearing all goods leaving the country for the USSR during World War II, describes some of the items of Lend-Lease he personally handled. He first observed only 49% of the total was for munitions. Considering all the exigencies of war, the items listed in the remaining 51% are almost unbelievable. (From Major Jordan's Diaries, Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York, 1952, p. 125).

Under munitions, or the first category, we gave Russia the following: aircraft and parts, motor vehicles and parts, ordnance and ammunition, tanks and parts, and water craft. Included in the water craft were "77 minesweepers, 105 landing craft, 103 subchasers, 28 frigates, 202 torpedo boats, 4 floating dry-docks, 4 250-ton pontoon barges, 3 icebreakers, 15 river tugs, and a light cruiser." (Ibid., p. 126).

Non-munitions items can be divided into three general areas: petroleum products, agricultural products, and industrial materials and products. Almost $2 billion was spent to feed the Russian people in the category of agricultural products. But the most interesting category is the last where over $3 billion or over one-third of U.S. Lend-Lease to Russia was expended. Jordan writes, "It is this category which conceals a multitude of sins, running the gambit from such military secrets as uranium and other atomic bomb ingredients, down to the Moscow amusement park which I will show you was paid for by Lend-Lease." The following items are among the more unusual non-munitions gifts to the Soviet Union: "Cigarette cases, phonograph records, household furnishings, lipsticks, perfumes, fishing tackle, dolls, bank vaults, ladies' compacts, sheet music, and play-ground equipment." Also listed for transfer to russia under Lend-Lease were "pianos and other musical instruments; antique furniture; calendars; 13,328 sets of teeth; toothbrushes of course; women's jewelry, etc., etc." (Ibid., pp. 127-128).

Between 1942 and 1944 the Russians received "dress goods costing more than $152 millions, plus $24 millions of satin twill, and ribbons, braids and trimmings, costing millions more - a grand total of $181 million for women's apparel." In the same period the Russian Army got only $21 millions of uniform material. (Ibid., p. 135).


At a time when wartime shortages forced Americans to seek and use many substitutes, the Communists seem to have had no such limitations on similar items. Jordan gives some examples:

"Small businesses that found wartime shortages severe, to the point of stopping production, will be amazed to learn how many `scarce' items were lavishly supplied to russia. Housewives will be aghast at the quantities of butter we denied ourselves and sent to a people which used it for greasing purposes....

"American copper resources became so critical during the war that bus bars of the metal, on electric panel boards, were replaced with conductors of silver, borrowed from the Treasury's vaults at West Point. Brass, an alloy of copper and zinc, was scarce enough to warrant serious debate over substituting steel in shell cases. With such facts in mind, Lend-Lease shipments of copper, brass and bronze to The Soviet Union, divulged in Russian lists, seem terrifying. They aggregated 642,503 tons, valued at $283,609,967.

"Seven-tenths of all our copper donations to Russia consisted of wire and cable.... What they obtained was enough telephone wire to circle the globe 50 times." (Ibid., pp. 130-132).

Much of the wire was stored at Westchester County, New York, where it remained until the war was nearly over before being shipped to Russia. (Ibid., p. 132).


Lend-Lease also included tools, machines, and heavy industry, presses, furnaces, lathes, coal cutters, air compressors, rock drills, cranes, hoists, derricks, typesetting and printing equipment, elevators, precision tools of every kind. Heavy industry included "one repair plant for precision instruments, $550,000; "two factories for food products, $69,240,000; three gas generating units, $21,390,000; one petroleum refinery, with machinery and equipment, $29,050,000; 17 stationary steam and three hydro-electric plants, $263,289,000." (Ibid., p. 135).


One thing that particularly bothered the Major was the number of black suitcases being shipped under diplomatic immunity. "To my surprise," wrote Jordan, they "contained reprints of the patents in the U.S. Patent Office." The U.S. Patent Office "was thrown open to a crew of technical experts from the Amtorg Trading Corporation. They were on full time duty, and spent every day going over the files to pick out what they wanted. The documents were provided by the Patent Office itself." The sack of American technology did not end until December 13, 1949.

Reportedly, the House Committee on Un-American Activities stated in 1949 that the number of patents acquired "run into the hundreds of thousands," that "Russian officials have been able to collect a lot of our industrial and military inventions from our Government Patent Office. This is done right out in the open with our permission." (Ibid., pp. 136-137). This clearly violated the rights of Americans who owned these patents since the Soviets made no pretense at compensating the patent owners for the use of their inventions.


Eleven billion dollars of Lend-Lease goods went to aid the Soviet Union in its struggle with Germany on the eastern front. As a result, the Communists ended the war in far greater strength than when the war began. The magnitude of the problems was probably best expressed by Vice President Henry Wallace, who made no secret of his pro-Soviet bias. On July 9, 1944, he returned from Russia to announce:

"I found American flour in the Soviet Far East, American aluminum in Soviet airplane factories, American steel in trucks and railway repair shops, American machine tools in shipbuilding yards, American compressors and electrical equipment on Soviet naval vessels, American core drills in the copper mines of Central Asia, and American trucks and planes performing strategic transportation functions...." (Keller, East Minus West Equals Zero, p. 241).


But the most shocking revelations from Jordan's Diaries was the type and quantity of "materials - chemicals, metals, minerals - suitable for use in an atomic pile." The list of these materials is as follows:


          Item                            Quantity     Cost in Dollars

Beryllium metals. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,681 lbs.  . . . 10,874.
Cadmium alloys. . . . . . . . . . . . . .72,535 lbs.  . . . 70,029.
Cadmium metals. . . . . . . . . . . . . 834,989 lbs.  . . .781,466.
Cobalt ore & concentrate. . . . . . . . .33,600 LBS.  . . . 49,782.
Cobalt metal & cobalt-bearing scrap . . 806,941 lbs.  . .1,190,774.
Uranium metal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 lbs.  . . . . . ___
Aluminum tubes. . . . . . . . . . . .13,766,472 lbs.  . 13,041,152.
Graphite, natural, flake,
  lump, or chip . . . . . . . . . . . 7,384,282 lbs.  . . .812,437.
Beryllium salts & compounds . . . . . . . . 228 lbs.  . . . . .775.
Cadmium oxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,100 lbs.  . . . .3,080.
Cadmium slats & compounds, n.e.s.*. . . . . . 2 lbs.  . . . . . 19.
Cadmium sulfate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,170 lbs.  . . . .1,374.
Cadmium sulfide . . . . . . . . . . . . .16,823 lbs.  . . . 17,380.
Cobalt nitrate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 lbs.  . . . . . 48.
Cobalt oxide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17,800 lbs.  . . . 34,832.
Cobalt salts & compounds, n.e.s.* . . . .11,475 lbs.  . . . .7,112.
Cobaltic & cobaltous sulfate. . . . . . . . .22 lbs.  . . . . . 25.
Deuterium oxide (heavy water) . . . . . . 1,100 grs.  . . . . . ___
Thorium salts & compounds . . . . . . . .25,352 lbs.  . . . 32,580.
Uranium nitrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 lbs.  . . . . . ___
Uranium nitrate (U02) . . . . . . . . . . . 220 lbs.  . . . . . ___
Uranium oxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 lbs.  . . . . . ___
Uranium urano uranic oxide (U308) . . . . . 200 lbs.  . . . . . ___
*"n.e.s." stands for "not especially specified," throughout.
(Jordan, From Major Jordan's Diaries, p. 142)

At the time these items meant little to the Major since the development of an atomic bomb was still the best-kept secret of the war as far as Americans were concerned.


One night Jordan decided to inspect a particular shipment of black suitcases over strong and determined Russian opposition. The two Russian guards resisted the attempt to such a degree that the Major felt it necessary to order an American guard to shoot should the Russians pull a weapon. What he found were copies of classified top secret information which the Communists had assembled from Washington, New York and elsewhere throughout the United States. One of the black suitcases was full of road maps which, taken together, "furnished a country-wide chart, with names and places, of American industrial plants." Another was "crammed with material assembled in America by the official Soviet news organ, The Tass Telegraph Agency." A third was devoted to Russia's government-owned Amtorg Trading Corporation of New York." A fourth "yielded a collection of maps of the Panama Canal Commission, with markings to show strategic spots in the Canal zone and distances to islands and ports within a 1,000 miles radius." Yet another "was filled with documents relating to the Aberdeen Proving Ground, one of the most sensitive' areas in the war effort." Some folders were "stuffed with naval and shipping intelligence." Others contained information extracted from Mexico, Argentina and Cuba. Some of the folders were marked "From Hiss" (probably Alger Hiss) or "H.H." (presumably Harry Hopkins) - two of the most important State Department figures. (Ibid., pp. 75-80). The Russians and their spies had completely canvassed America and extracted every piece of information considered to be of technological or military value to the USSR. All of this they did while serving as professed ally of the U.S. in the war with Germany.


Jordan made notes of everything he saw. The notes of one particular suitcase were to prove significant in the future. Among other things it contained a thick map. "When unfolded it proved to be as wide as the span of my extended arms. In large letters it bore a legend which I recorded: Oak Ridge, manhattan Engineering District." The report labeled Oak Ridge which accompanied the map is even more surprising, Jordan wrote:

"In the text of the report was encountered a series of vocables so outlandish that I made a memo to look up their meaning. Among them were `cycletron,' `energy produced by fission' and `walls five feet thick, of lead and water, to control flying neutrons.'

"For the first time in my life, I met the word `uranium,' the exact phrase was `Uranium 92.' From a book of reference I learned afterward that uranium is the 92nd element in atomic weight." (Ibid., p. 81).

One of the folders from Harry Hopkins bore the notation "... had a hell of a time getting these away from Groves." General Groves was the chief of the atomic bomb Manhattan Project. Jordan had no way of knowing that he witnessed the transfer of top secret atomic information to the Communists, and that the materials for building such a weapon were a part of Lend- Lease. In March 1943, when Jordan made his inspection of the suitcases, the development of an atomic bomb was supposed to be the most closely guarded secret in the world. "It was superlatively hush-hush, to the extreme that army officers in the `know' were forbidden to mention it over their private telephones inside the Pentagon." Yet the Russians knew it. Jordan writes, "In common with almost all Americans, I got the first hint of the existence of the atom bomb from the news of Hiroshima, which was revealed on August 6, 1945, by President Truman." Not realizing the significance of his discovery, Jordan did not see the need to make his findings public until September 1949, when the Soviets exploded their first atom bomb years ahead of the most optimistic U.S. prediction. (Ibid., pp. 84-86).


The noted war correspondent and author of Report on the Russians, W.L. White, confirms the fact that the Russians had access to our atomic secrets. White tells the following story:

"Just what do they know in the Soviet Union about our atomic secret? When I visited Russia in 1944 they knew more than I did. A Soviet guide took our party on a tour of Leningrad. At the badly bombed Kirov electric plant, a curious contraption of rusty steel caught my attention.

"`What is that?' I asked Kirilov, our guide.

"`Oh, that,' said Kirilov, `is cyclotron. Is used by our great Soviet physicist, Professor Joffe, when he makes, how you say, splitting of atom. But this is old,' continued Kirilov. `The new ones we move them behind Ural mountains. Behind Urals Professor Joffe has much newer, much better.'

"`Of course.' I was humoring him. I could see he was trying to make the point that, even with the enemy at its gates, in the Soviet Union this research in theoretical science still continued.

"But Kirilov doggedly went on. `Behind Urals we have many big things. We have like you call in American, Manhattan Project. You know this, yes?'

"`Oh, of course,' I said. "We have lots of war projects in New York.' `Not in New York,' said Kirilov, looking at me intently, `Manhattan Project. You know of this?'

"It was not until an entire year had passed - and the atom bomb went off at Hiroshima - that I understood, at last, exactly what it was that poor, stammering Kirilov had been trying to ask me." (Ibid., pp. 120-121).

Apparently Lend-Lease included everything from pineapples to lipstick to atom materials. Although espionage and classified military information were not authorized Lend-Lease items, the program as designed and loosely ran by Harry Hopkins, left hugh gaps in security. These gaps were sufficient to send through the air base in Great Falls, Montana, a flood of goods not specifically designed to destroy Hitler, but instead to rebuild Communist Russia - gaps sufficiently large to allow mountains of top secret materials to go unchecked and remain under diplomatic immunity to the greatest U.S. enemy of the post-war period. The subsequent discovery of Hopkins' close association with the Communist hierarchy is not surprising, considering the enormity of the assistance he gave them. What the Rosenburgs did was no worse, and they went to the electric chair.


No large unit of the construction program in the Soviet Union between 1929 and 1933 "was without foreign technical assistance, and because Soviet machine tool production then was limited to the most elementary types, all production equipment in these plants was foreign." (Anthony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1945-1965, p. 412). Nor was there any "major technology or major plant under construction between 1930 and 1945" that can be "identified as purely a Soviet effort. No usable technology originated in Soviet laboratories except in the case of synthetic rubber, and this was not up to U.S. standards in 1941." Most of the period was used in adjusting to windfall Western technology coming mainly in 1939-1933 and 1943-1945. (Anthony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1930-1945, p. 346).


But the story of Western "aid and comfort" to the USSR does not end in 1945. The rest of the decade might be viewed as the era of technological plunder. The war left the Communist in control of many former western countries brimming with technological assets. The Russian program was to dismantle and transfer whole factories to the USSR. Much of the rest of the decade was required just to absorb this windfall. Germany, in particular, was emasculated; "at least two-thirds of the German aircraft industry the major part of the rocket production industry, probably two- thirds of the electrical industry, several automobile plants, several hundred large ships, and specialized plants to produce instruments, military equipment, armaments, and weapons systems." (Anthony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1945-1965, p. 414). This technological transfer is easily explained as the Communists controlled the areas from which the technology was extracted.

What cannot be explained is the fact that "by the end of 1946 about 95 percent od dismantling in the U.S. Zone was for the USSR (including the aircraft plants of Daimer-Benz, ball bearing factories, and several munitions plants)." The allied program giving the Communists dismantled plants in the U.S. Zone was ironically but appropriately termed Operation RAP [RAPE]. (Ibid.).


One of the great mysteries of the allied invasion of Germany in 1945 was the order signed by General Dwight D. Eisenhower to General Patton requesting that the latter evacuate the captured small town of Nordhausen, Germany, allowing the Russians unrestricted occupancy of Germany's V-2 rocket program. The order requested that "all patents, plans, drawings, and inventions must be placed intact, and in good condition, at the disposal of the Allied representatives." Valiant Major I.P. Hamille, recognizing this to be a serious betrayal of American interests, disobeyed orders and "removed hundreds of almost complete V-2 rockets and a number of valuable documents from the underground arsenal." (Ibid., pp, 323-325).

Is it any wonder the Soviets were first in space by the late 1950s? The Germans were working on a long-range rocket with satellite potential before the Russians occupied Nordhausen. In fact, had the Germans been further along in their missile research the outcome of the war might have been different. Dr. Dornberger, one of the few German scientists to escape the Russians, stated that "the Russians have made use of our experience in the building of long-range rockets.... They adopted our plans for the conquest of space, worked out by us in 1942." The magnitude of the blunder at Nordhausen cannot be over exaggerated. "Over one thousand machine tools for the production of rockets and mountains of documents, all stamped `top secret,' were turned over to the Soviets, including blueprints for the future development of the V-2 and the completed plans for putting satellites into space." (Ibid., p. 326).


Yet even with the plunder and absorption of German technology the Russians were seriously deficient in the chemical, computer, shipbuilding, and consumer industries. To correct these technological gaps the Soviets once again cst their eyes on the West, which again responded by giving assistance. Between 1959 and 1963 the Soviets purchased "at least 50 complete chemical plants" designed to produce chemicals not previously produced in the USSR. The other deficiencies were corrected similarly.

"A gigantic ship-purchasing program was then instituted, so that by 1967 about two-thirds of the Soviet merchant fleet had been built in the West. More difficulty was met in the acquisition of computers and similar advanced technologies, but a gradual weakening of Western export control under persistent Western business and political pressures produced a situation by the end of the sixties whereby the Soviets were able to purchase almost the very largest and fastest of Western computers." (Anthony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1945- 1965, p. 415).


The extent of our "aid and comfort" to the heartland of Communism in the early sixties is best illustrated by the attempt of Pro-Soviet officials in the U.S. State Department to process, as peaceful trade, 45 machines which produced miniature ball-bearing used almost exclusively in missiles. Only the United States had the capability of producing this type of ball- bearing. The bearings themselves were not shipped, but the machines and other equipment necessary for Russia to manufacture these bearing independent of the United States were sent. This deal so alarmed the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee that they investigated the transfer arrangement and concluded:

"(1) that the miniature bearings produced with the help of the Bryant machine are used primarily for defense purposes; (2) that the function performed by the Bryant machine is of critical importance; (3) that no comparable machines can at present be obtained from other sources; (4) that Soviet industry has not been able to master the problems involved in mass producing high precision miniature bearings; that the industry is in fact plagued by poor quality and obsolete equipment; that, with its own resources, it would take a number of years to develop the capability; (5) that the possession of these machines would greatly accelerate Soviet mastery of the art of miniaturization." ("Proposed Shipment of Balling Bearings Machines to the USSR," Report of the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act Aid Other Internal Security Laws to the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 87th Congress, First Session, 28 Feb. 1961, p. 3).

According to the Defense Department, which first opposed the transfer, it would "enable the Soviet Union to produce smaller and better missile guidance systems, gyros, and other military items." (Ibid., p. 2) At that moment there were "72 Bryant Model B machines installed in the United States.... The 54 machines that will be shipped to the United States, unless the Bryant license is revoked, include 35 of this model, thus will give a capability half as large as our own." The shipment was stopped but not before the Russians received a detailed copy of the schematics of the machine. (Ibid., p. 7).

Actually, this may not have been entirely necessary as some months previously Poland had already received several of these grinders. The USSR no doubt had access to these machines. The Bryant deal was canceled but in spite of all the furor and opposition, the Russians still shipped similar grinders which were not as precise but nevertheless highly strategic under the circumstances. Some of those aware of this and similar transfers might have agreed with the comments made by an employee of the Department of Defense, "I would rather send them a gun than a machine tool because a gun can be used X number of times and a gun is finished. A machine tool can be used over and over again to manufacture these guns. It is almost unlimited." (Export of Strategic Materials to the USSR and other Soviet Bloc Countries," Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 87th Congress, First Session, 23 Oct. 1961, Part I, pp. 26-27, 29).


The single purpose of the Communists has been proclaimed for 60 years as the "liquidation of our form of free society and the emergence of a sovietized, communized world order." The Communists have not tried to hide this fact. Their literature is full of such references. They also know that the achievement of this goal is dependent upon the extensive development of heavy industry. Khrushchev, for one, explained, at the 21st Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, "that the economic might of the Soviet Union is based upon the priority growth of heavy industry." He believed that this "should insure a Soviet victory in peaceful economic competition with the capitalists and that development of Soviet economic might well give the Communists the decisive edge in the international balance of power." In order to promote their objectives the Communists "have determined - cost what it may - to develop a military establishment as a strong national economy which will provide a secure home base from which to deploy their destructive foreign activities."

According to Senator Thomas J. Dodd, "it would be ridiculous and suicidal for Americans to contribute in any way to Soviet strength." He told colleagues serving with him on the Senate Internal security Subcommittee:

"Personally, I believe there should be a presumption against any exports to the Soviet Bloc. I don't believe there is as sharp a distinction between economic and military items as is assumed, since anything we furnish to the Soviets in the way of economic goods helps them concentrate their efforts on military production. Moreover, our conflict with Communism is economic as well as political and we have nothing to gain in this struggle by helping the Reds build up their economy by filling in gaps in their own production." (Ibid., pp. 2-3).

But this was not the philosophy of those who sanctioned polices of "aid and comfort." For whatever reason, such assistance continued to pour into the Soviet Bloc. According to Senator Dodd who summarized the findings of the Senate Internal Security Committee report entitled "Export of Strategic Materials to the USSR," this "trade is not a two-way street. The United States is sending to the Soviet Bloc two or three times the volume of goods which we import from these same countries and the volume and ratio in Russia's favor are increasing rather than decreasing." (Ibid., p. 4).

According to sworn testimony before the SISC nearly 200 items of strategic value to the Soviet Union were shipped by the United States in 1961 to the motherland of Communism. (Ibid., p. 59). Included were jet aircraft destined for Yugoslavia. (Ibid., p. 42).


Some may justify our "aid and comfort" to the communist Bloc on the basis that "everybody is doing it." Whether right or wrong, other Western nations are doing the same thing and in some cases they exceed the aid given by the United States. It is as though the free nations were jockeying for front position in strengthening the enemy. For example, clear back in 1962 the British Board of Trade "approved for export to China such items as machine tools, electric motors and generators, motor vehicles and tractors, railway locomotives and other railway equipment, combustion engines, scientific instruments, rubber tires, and chemical products - goods vital to China's development plans." (Ibid., 26 Oct. 1962, Part 4, p. 419).

Joseph Anthony Gywer, a leader authority on East-West trade and senior research specialist with the Library of Congress, explains this relationship.

"Basically, looking on the statistics covering the East-West trade, the figures for trade between the United States and the Soviet Union or the Soviet Bloc, are relatively insignificant in comparison with the overall total trade between the Soviet Bloc nations and the nations of Western Europe; namely, Italy, West Germany, France, and Great Britain." (Ibid., Part I, p. 59).

In early, 1960 West European firms were already committed "to export from $200 to $300 million worth of the most sophisticated machine tools, including, for example, a 60-foot vertical boring machine that could be used for machining missile engine shells." Each of these countries are helping the Communists to lay the foundations for future export capacities which will some day be harnessed to the conduct of economic warfare against the West." According to the "Communists' concepts of power, any trade which facilitates industrial development is strategically important. Trade with the West supplies the Bloc with equipment which improves its technological levels, satisfies popular desires, expands the industrial power base, and increases its future capacity to export and thereby disrupt free markets." (Ibid., p. 419-420).


Senator Kenneth B. Keating, acting as chairman in an investigation of "Soviet Oil in East-West Trade," summarized the serious problem confronting America and the free world:

"The free world, while concentrating on communist military threats, appears to be largely oblivious to these Soviet economic threats. As long as we maintain a military stalemate with the Reds, the economic aspects of the cold war actually may be a more decisive factor in determining whether freedom or tyranny will prevail that the military aspects." (Soviet Oil in East_West Trade, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Internal Security of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 87th Congress, Second Session, 3 July 1962, p. 2).

That was precisely the observation and conclusion noted by the Committee on Un-American Activities in their report entitled Communist Economic Warfare:

"The Kremlin regards economic warfare as a weapon of conquest..."

They reasoned that the Soviet Union looks upon "trade as a way to carry influence where ideology cannot work, where military action is inadvisable, and where direct political pressure ... is not feasible as a weapon of conquest....

"In the Kremlin's eyes, the goal of world Communism can be achieved by a variety of methods; economic, political, ideological, military, psychological, and other kinds of activities. To the extent that the West is able to put up defenses against one or another of these forms of conquest, the Kremlin will be forced to turn to another.

"... at this time it appears that the cheapest and the prospectively most profitable methods for the advancement of communism appears to be in the economic and psychological realm." ("Communist Economic: Consultation with Dr. Robert Loring Allen," Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, 86th Congress, 2nd Session, 6 Apr. 1969, pp. 1-2).

The success of this strategy is demonstrated by the fact that in a mere sixty years the Communists have conquered nearly half of the world.


Periodically various Congressional committees have taken painstaking effect, with volumes of research, to warn us of this problem. Almost inevitably, however, or to least predictably, the new evidence dishing out more assistance to the Communists, seeming oblivious to the dangers involved. Seldom, if ever, does the news media bother comment on the release of this documented evidence. One example was the report of the Committee on the Judicial, United States Senate, released on October 26, 1962. Its findings summarized and verified what we have briefly outlined above:

"Our investigations to date have established that, over a period of many years, the free world has been, making a direct contribution to the Communist military and industrial strength by sales of vital materials and technology to the Soviet Bloc....

"The Soviet Bloc has relied heavily on procurement from the West in the period of its growth as a world power....

"The Red Chinese have received Viscount jet prop airplanes with strategically classified navigation equipment which could be used to transport troops to Laos, Vietnam, and other Asian battlefronts.

"Chemicals, plastics, electronic equipment, and machine tools have flowed from the West to many Communist Bloc countries at an inexplicable rate.

"The Bloc countries have been able, partly as a result of this procurement, to export their own machinery and technology to other countries, always with tight political strings attached....

"It seems amazing that these materials, having such an obvious industrial and strategic potential, continue to be shipped to the Bloc. We have failed completely to mobilize anything resembling a free world global economic offensive against Communism." (Export of Strategic Materials to the USSR and other Soviet Bloc Countries," Hearing before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee, Committee of the Judiciary, United States Senate, 87th Congress, Part 3, 26 Oct. 1962, pp. 369-370).


Among other things the Report disclosed that in a large measure the West has literally built the Soviet Petroleum and Natural Gas industries. Unfortunately, assistance such as this can be cited ad nauseam. The West is even responsible for 66.5% of the Soviet Bloc tanker tonnage bringing the fuel to market. (Ibid., p. 395-396).


With the advent of the Vietnam War one would have supposed that this unlimited "aid and comfort" to the Communist world would have either creased entirely or decreased substantially. Instead, it rose sharply. President Johnson was more than serious when on October 7, 1966, he announced his policy of escalated "aid and comfort" to the eastern European Communist states.

"We intend to press for legislative authority to negotiate trade agreements which could extend most-favored-nation tariff treatments to European Communist states.... We will reduce export controls on East-West trade with respect to hundreds of non-strategic items. I have just signed a determination that will allow the Export-Import Bank to guarantee commercial credits to four additional Eastern European countries.... We do not intend to let our differences on Vietnam or elsewhere prevent us from exploring all opportunities." (Speech by President Lyndon B. Johnson, 17 Oct. 1966, to the National Conference of Editorial Writers. See also Current Export Bulletin, U.S. Department of Commerce, no 941, 12 Oct. 1966, p. 1).


The boast was no exaggeration. He also informed Americans that the United States "would supply the precision machinery to equip the hugh automotive manufacturing plant which Fiat Co. of Italy is selling to Soviet Russia and that the Export-Import Bank would finance the sales." Automotive manufacturing plants are easily converted to tank assembly plants. Five days later John T. Connor, Secretary of the Department of Commerce, announced that the Department was revising the Commodity Control list to permit approximately 400 formerly strategic commodities to move under general license to the USSR and other Eastern European Communist countries. And all of this while Americans were dying in Southeast Asia. The list was very similar to those commodities enroute to russia which were disclosed by Major Jordan. It included everything imaginable: textile products, metal manufacturers, machinery, chemical materials and products, and manufactured articles. Also included were such raw materials as Diesel fuel, iron ore, rubber, petroleum, aluminum, rifle cleaning compounds, liquid gas, ammonia, magnesium and every chemical imaginable. These are unbelievably defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce as "commodities that fall into the category of peaceful goods, which may be freely exported without any risks to United States national interests." (Current Export Bulletin: Supplement to the Comprehensive Export schedule, U.S. Department of Commerce, no. 941, 12 Oct. 1966, p. 1).

It is important to realize that probably 80 to 90 percent of Hanoi's war machine came from Russia and her eastern allies, and that no war machine is effective without oil, rubber, Diesel fuel, iron ore, liquid gas and etc. To list these items as non-strategic to allow the enemy to have them, thus freeing the export of their own oil, gas and rubber to Hanoi, stretches credulity beyond the bounds of rationality.


But supplying raw material for Soviet War machine apparently was not enough. We had to add the war machine itself. Between 1959 and 1963 the Soviet "bought at least 50 complete chemical plants ... for chemicals not previously produced in the USSR." And by 1967 the West could claim credit for having built approximately "two-thirds of the Soviet merchant fleet." (Anthony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1945-1965, vol 3, p. 415).

And if the Soviet navy is said to be the strongest in the world today the West may look inward for the cause. Of the ships not built in the West, four-fifths are propelled by engines from the West. "All Soviet automobile, truck, and engine technology comes from the United States or its NATO allies." The impact of this technological giveaway carries extremely serious implications:

"The Soviet military has over 3,000,000 trucks - all from these United-States-built plants. Up to 1960 the largest motor vehicle plant in the USSR was at Gorki. Gorki produces many of the trucks American pilots see on the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Gorki produces the chassis for the GAZ-69 rocket launcher used against Israel. Gorki produces the Soviet jeep and half a dozen other military vehicles. And Gorki was built by the Ford Motor Company - as peaceful trade." (Cong. Rec., 17 Aug. 1972, pp. E7551-3).


As if the lessons of Gorki were not painful enough, the United States in 1968 signed the so-called FIAT deal - to build a plant at Vologograd three times bigger than Gorki" and the largest heavy truck plant in the world. The 36-square-mile Kama plant is capable of producing 100,000 heavy ten-ton trucks per year. "That's more than all United States manufactures put together." (Ibid.).


One of the most recent technological concessions to the USSR is the Cyber 73 computer. We must keep in mind that it is "superior computer technology, such as we have" which "spells superior military capabilities in such areas as intercontinental ballistic missiles, MIRV, ballistic-missile defence, satellite-based surveillance systems, and high-performance aircraft." The government claims that the Cyber 73 has "only civilian or peacetime applications." This is only partially accurate. Such computers do have value in oil exploration and earthquake prediction but are used also "for nuclear-weapons testing and military radar development." Actually the Cyber is:

"... a very high-speed, large-volume advanced third-generation scientific computer that processes about 95 million bits of information a second. Besides being used by the Defense Department - including the supersecret National Security Agency - it is also working for the ERDA. Cyber, in fact, is roughly equal to an IBM 36-145 or 360-165 with extended core memory - which in layman's language means one hell of a machine." (Cong. Rec., 27 Jan. 1977, p. E395).


The stark reality is that the Russian war machine operates upon Western technology. Thousands of Americans were maimed and killed in Korea and Vietnam as a results of the ingenious destructive devices developed in the West and furnished to these Communist military forces by the Soviets. As harsh as the truth may be, the fact remains that "from the technical viewpoint the Soviet Union at 1070 and 1977 is a copy - a rather imperfect copy - of the West." Even in the few areas where Russian innovations were identified "we find a move back toward the use of Western technology." (Anthony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1945-1965, p. 415). Virtually "all widely applied ... technology in the Soviet Union today may have originated in the outside world." (Ibid., p. 420). And if today the Soviet Union poses as the greatest threat to human freedom known in the history of the world, we have the haunting fact to face that we made her so. She is our doomsday machine.


Ironically, however, this doomsday machine, which exists to destroy freedom, has a built-in self-destruct mechanism. The very factors responsible for its existence are identical with those which could cause its demise. The Achilles' heel in this threat to humanity is the Communists' reliance on Western technology. Cut it off and the billions ordinarily poured into their war machine will have to be diverted to the basic economic structure necessary to feed and clothe their millions. Without the Western props the war machine will slowly collapse and in all likelihood Communism will then be overthrown from within. In fact, this is the very solution proposed by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his now famous address before the AFL-CIO in New York on July 9, 1975. As previously pointed out, he declared:

"Our country is taking your assistance, but in the schools they are teaching and in newspapers they are writing and in the lectures they are saying, `Look at the Western world, it's beginning to rot. Look at the economy of the Western world, it's coming to an end. The great predictions of Marx, Engels, and Lenin are coming true. Capitalism is breathing its last. It's already dead. It has demonstrated once and for all the triumph of Communism. I think, gentlemen ... that we should at least permit this Socialist economy to prove its superiority. Let's allow it to show that it is advanced, that it is omnipotent, that it has defeated you, that it has overtaken you. Let us not interfere with it. Let us stop selling to it and giving it loans. If it's all that powerful then let it stand on its own feet for ten or fifteen years. Then we will see what it looks like. I can tell you what it will look like. I am being quite serious now. When the Soviet economy is no longer able to deal with everything, it will have to reduce its military preparations. It will have to abandon the useless space effort and it will have to feed and clothe its own people. And the system will be forced to relax."

"Thus, all I ask you is that as long as this Soviet economy is so proud, so flourishing, and yours is so rotten and so moribund - stop helping it then. Where has a cripple ever helped along an athlete?" ("The Strangled Cry of Solzhenitsyn," National Review, 29 Aug. 1975, p. 937-938).


Solzhenitsyn's solution to end Soviet tyranny and imperialism is simple, bloodless, humane, and inexpensive. But if this is so, why isn't it being done?

The plain truth is that this precise solution has been strongly advocated for a number of years by a minority of courageous Americans in Congress, but the whole idea has been treated with disdain by the Whiter House, the State Department, and the majority of Congress. This raises a series of probative queries as to the motivations of those who have resisted this solution:

1. Could it have occurred without any special motivation, but merely as the results of political astigmation and ignorance?

2. Or has it been because big business on the multinational level has found enemy-trade extremely profitable and used its influence in Washington to encourage rather than hinder it?

3. Then again, is it possible that the policy-makers considered trade with the enemy as the means of fostering peace?

4. Or did they feel that we ourselves need this trade to survive economically?

5. Then there is that ultimate but reprehensible question: Is it possible that none of the above are controlling, but that the plain truth is that the top level of our government and business community has been deliberately building a global Communist- Capitalist alliance designed to eventually provide a total monopoly of worldwide power?


As we examine each of these suppositions, we cannot help but recognize a number of curious but obvious facts. First of all, if blind ignorance under option number one were the explanation, then we could expect an occasional blunder to have been favorable to our side. The over-powering evidence of a consistent design by eleven presidents from both major parties to deliberately and persistently favor the strengthening of an avowed Communist enemy makes the prognosis of "blind ignorance" an unlikely possibility.

Option number two based on the profit motive certainly seems to have a had a significant role in rendering so much "aid and comfort" to an avowed enemy, but this cannot be the whole explanation. If it were, the profit motive would have demanded that goods be sent under circumstances which would encourage the Communists to return and buy more. But that is not what happened. Instead, the capitalists of the West have been building the Communists some of the largest and finest factories in the world - factories designed to make them not only self-sufficient but before long the stiffest kind of competition against the U.S. for the world market.

Option number three presents the supposition that generous trade with an avowed enemy will somehow foster peace. The tragic historical precedents of aid to Germany, Italy and Japan prior to World War II should certainly expose the fallacy of this mythological illusion. Certainly, billions of dollars in aid and comfort to the USSR since the New Economic Program in 1923 have not purchased even an ounce of peace, as the more than one billion human being now in Communist slavery can attest. Unfortunately, this illusion of fanciful hope is still naively propagated in some of the highest circles of political and academic life. Congressman John G. Schmitz had the following to say to his colleagues concerning this subject:

"No one has ever presented evidence, hard evidence, that trade leads to peace. Why not? Because there is no such evidence. It's an illusion. It is true that peace leads to trade, but that's not the same thing. You first need peace, then you trade. That does not mean if you trade you will get peace.... Trade with Germany doubled before World War II.... What was in this German and Japanese trade? The same means for war that we are now supplying the Soviets." (Cong. Rec., 17 Aug. 1972, p. 28986).

Meanwhile, says Schmitz, "the United States is spending $80 billion a year [1972] on defense against an enemy built by the United States and Western Europe." (Ibid., p. 28985).

Option four hypothesizes that trade with the Soviet Union is vital to our economy and that ending or curtailing such trade is for this reason impossible. Unfortunately, the very opposite is true. In a study entitled "The Many Crises of the Soviet Economy" the Senate, after detailing the extreme weaknesses of the Soviet economy, reasoned:

"if the Soviet economy were healthy, if increased East-West trade were a matter of secondary importance to it, then obviously we could not pose conditions in discussing trade with the Communistic Bloc. But if the Soviets need such trade desperately, as the facts indicate they do, then this situation provides us with a leverage which should not be ignored." (The Many Crises of the Soviet Economy: A Symposium Compiled by the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 88th Congress, 2nd Session, 1964, p. x).

But this leverage has been ignored both by Democrats and Republicans and regardless of who has been President. The Senate report continues:

"In terms of what it can contribute to American and Western prosperity, the potential benefits to be derived even from substantially increased trade with the Soviet Bloc are so small as to be negligible.

"In 1962 the United States exported $21.7 billion worth of produce, accounting for 3.7 percent of our gross national produce. Of our total exports, approximately one-half of 1 percent went to the Soviet Bloc. In short, we sold to the Communists approximately one five-thousandth of our gross national product. Even if we were to double or quadruple out trade with the Soviet Bloc, it obviously is not going to have a very significant impact on our national prosperity.

"Our Western European allies, who have been going in so eagerly for trade with the Soviets, are very little more dependent than we are on this trade for their national prosperity....

"From these figures it should be clear that the Western countries would not become bankrupt even if the Soviet market were to disappear overnight." (Ibid., pp. xii-xiii).

Although we have little or no need of the Communist market the opposite is true of their need for us. East-West trade for the Russians, the Senate found, is not merely of critical importance; It may well be a matter of survival." (Ibid.).


Option five is the most disagreeable alternative, yet face it we must. To suggest that our "aid and comfort" were deliberately designed to institutionalize a Soviet empire in the East opens a Pandora's Box of prickly questions. But the facts are clear. Dr. Antony Sutton wrote that during the past fifty years of Soviet Communism there was a "persistent, powerful, but not clearly identifiable force in the West working for a continuance of the transfers. Surely the political power and influence of the Soviets was not sufficient alone to bring about such favorable Western policies. Indeed, in view of the aggressive nature of declared Soviet Communist leaders." (Cong. Rec., 8 July 1975, pp. S11951-56). These were precisely Dr. Sutton's conclusions.


Whatever the case and whichever options is preferred by the reader, one thing is clear - on numerous occasions the Communists motherland has been repeatedly spared from collapse by the generosity of the West. Sutton wrote:

"It is ... clear - and the writer makes this assertion only after considerable contemplation of the evidence - that whenever the Soviet economy has reached a crisis point, Western governments have come to its assistance. The financing of the Bolshevik Revolution by the German Foreign Ministry was followed by German assistance out of the abysmal trough of 1922. Examples of continuing Western assistance include the means to build the First Five-Year Plan and the models for subsequent duplication; Nazi assistance in 1939041 and U.S. assistance in 1941-45; the decline in export control in the fifties and sixties; and finally the French, German, and Italian credits of the sixties and the abandonment of controls over the shipment of advanced technology by the United States in 1969. All along, the survival of the Soviet Union has been in the hands of Western governments." (Anthony C. Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1945-1965, p. 421).


As we meditate upon the unfortunate situation in which we now find ourselves, the prophecies of Lenin return to haunt us as from the abysm of the deep. It was he who told his comrades that the West would supply whatever was needed by the Soviet economy: "They will fight with each other so that we'll buy from one rather than from the other." He said, "Comrades, don't worry when things are hard with us. When things are difficult, we will give a rope to the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie will hang itself with this rope." Karl Radek was then said to have asked: "Vladimir Llyich, where are we going to get enough rope to hang the whole bourgeoisie?" Whereupon Lenin replied: "They'll supply us with it." (Cong. Rec., 8 July 1975, pp. S11951-56).

The Soviets have not tried to hide their intention of using the strength of the West for its own ultimate overthrow. Every school boy should commit to memory another famous statement reportedly made by Lenin:

"The so-called cultural element of Western Eurpoe and America are incapable of comprehening the present state of affairs and the actual balance of forces; these elements must be regarded as deaf-mutes and treated accordingly....

"A revolution never develops along a direct line, by continuous expansion, but froms a chain of outbursts and withdrawals, attacks and lulls, during which the revolutionary forces gain strength in preparationfor their final victory....

"We must:

"(a) In order to placate the deaf-mutes, proclaim the fictional separation of our government ... from the Comintern, declaring this agency to be an independent political group. The deaf- mutes will believe it.

"(b) Express a desire for the immediate resumption of diplomatic relations with capitalist countries on the basis of complete non-interference in their internal affairs. Again, the deaf- mutes will believe it. They will even be delighted and fling wide-open their doors through which the emissaries of the Comintern and Party Intelligence agencies will quickly infiltrate into these countries disguised as our diplomatic, cultural, and trade representatives.

"Capitalists the world over and their governments will, in their desire to win Soviet market, shut their eyes to the above- mentioned activities and thus be turned into blind deaf-mutes. They will furnish credits, which will serve as a means of supporting the Communist parties in their countries, and, by supplying us, will rebuild our war industry, which is essential for our future attacks on our suppliers. In other words, they will be laboring to prepare their own suicide." (The Lufkin News, King Featurers Syndicate, Inc., 31 July 1962, p. 4, as quoted by the Freeman Report, 30 Sept. 1973, p. 8).

As uncomplimentary as the epithet "blind deaf-mutes" may sound, the record almost seems to make it appropriate and deserved. Even so, it is unlikely that all who participated in our continual blood transfusion to the heartland of Communism did so ignorantly. Many must not have been blind deaf-mutes but people who knew exactly what they were doing.


Equally disturbing is the amount and type of assistance called "foreign aid" (international welfare), much of which has been used to prop up dictators with strong pro-Communist sympathies. Until 1973 no one seemed to know precisely how much was being spent as Foreign Aid. The Nixon administration claimed that the Authorized budget of only $4.5 billion was being spent. However, many in the Senate, notably Clifford Case and William Proxmire, were certain that it was much more. Other Senators were, in turn, convinced, and after a two-year battle, the executive branch finally submitted the list of those receiving aid and the amounts involved. The report was the first and "most complete summary of foreign aid spending and U.S. economic involvement abroad ever put together in a single document...." It disclosed that considerably more was being spent for the 1972 fiscal tear than the $4.5 billion authorized by Congress. The real total "was closer to $11.3 billion," but if we add to the categories as guarantees, insurance, property transfers and military sales for cash ... the grand total figure in the report amounted to almost $20 billion." ("Foreign Aid," the Freeman Report, 16 Feb. 1974, p. 1).

The findings were shocking. Although, a total of 115 countries were receiving aid, including Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Denmark, and Japan. And these are supposed to be the great industrial giants of the world. One finds it difficult to understand why they are receiving "internationalized welfare" and aid from the U.S. where it now has a national debt higher than all the rest of the nations of the world combined. Consider the figures below:

                         Economic Aid   Military Aid             Total
Germany                  135,400,000    958,000,000         1,093,400,000
United Kingdom           148,100,000    109,800,000           257,900,000
France                   128,500,000    109,800,000           136,000,000
Denmark                   28,200,000      7,500,000            45,300,000
Ireland                    2,200,000        200,000             2,400,000
Netherlands              148,600,000     29,200,000           177,800,000
Italy                    119,700,000     77,200,000           196,900,000
Canada                   105,000,000     28,400,000           133,400,000
Japan                    531,700,000     94,400,000           626,100,000
Hong Kong                 14,200,000                           14,200,000
                      --------------  --------------       --------------
Totals                $1,361,600,000  $1,321,800,000       $2,683,400,000
(Cong. Rec., 22 Mar. 1973, pp. S5435-42)


We also observe from the figures, reluctantly coughed up by the government, that the Arabic countries, reportedly the great oil barons of the earth, are receiving U.S. handouts and that what they receive collectively is greater than that given to Israel. Consider the following:

                        Economic Aid   Military Aid             Total
Iran                     140,000,000    617,700,000         757,700,000
Egypt                      9,800,000                          9,800,000
Jordan                     5,200,000    105,700,000         110,900,000
Saudi Arabia              19,100,000    307,300,000         326,400,000
Iraq                         200,000                            200,000
Lebanon                   26,800,000     10,200,000          37,000,000
                      --------------  --------------     --------------
Totals                  $201,100,000  $1,040,900,000     $1,242,000,000

During the fiscal year 1972, Israel received $191,400,000 in economic and $667,900,000 in military assistance, totaling $859,300,000. Economic aid between the two opposing sides in the Mid-East conflict was rather equal, with the Arabs holding the slight edge. However, the military aid was totally lopsided in favor of the Arabs by approximately one-third. Apparently, as indicated by these government figures, we give greater backing to the Arabs in the Mideast conflict. (Ibid.). So do the Russians.


The figures on the Southeast Asia conflict are equally revealing.

                    Economic Aid   Military Aid             Total
Vietnam               69,700,000  3,293,800,000        3,363,500,000
Cambodia              20,200,000    224,000,000          244,100,000
Laos                   4,900,000    266,200,000          271,100,000
Thailand              51,000,000     96,000,000          147,000,000
                     -----------  --------------     --------------
Totals              $145,800,000 $4,880,000,000       $4,025,700,000
Collectively, the wealthy countries of Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Japan and etc. received ten times as much economic aid as did Southeast Asia, and reportedly we were attempting to develop these countries so that when we pulled out hey could defend themselves. Even the rich oil countries of the mid-Ease received more than our Asian "friends" by one-fourth. Thirty-one countries exceeded the $70 million given South Vietnam for economic development. Argentina received 3 times as much, Bangladesh 4 times, Botswana, Italy and Canada 1 1/2 times, Brazil 10 times as much, India and Iran twice as much, Indonesia 4 1/2 times, Japan 6 1/2 times, Mexico 3 times and Spain 7 1/2 times as much. Even the Communist country of Yugoslavia received twice as much as South Vietnam. Sixty-five countries received more economic aid then Cambodia. Clearly our primary objective in Southeast Asia was not to prepare these countries to pull their own weight once we pulled out.


Very few of the 115 countries receiving "international welfare" can be said to be pro-republican in their form of government. Conversely, most of these governments are tyrannical and are using aid monies to prop up their oppressive regimes. Any countries strongly opposed to oppressive forms of government seldom receive any aid. U.S. policy is supposed to be geared to stability, hoping that the dictators in the exchange will look more favorably at our form of government. But our foreign aid has not changed any tyrants, has not won us friends, has not significantly stopped the spread of Communism and has not won us allies for the next inevitable conflict. Instead, the countries receiving aid only demand more; and the U.S.-aided Communists demonstrate against us and fight against us in the United Nations. Perhaps it is time we reevaluated the significance of all these expenditures.

One question might be helpful. Would we have any fewer friends and allies if there had been no foreign aid?


Not only have our foreign-aid monies been used to prop up totalitarian dictatorships, but in some cases this has been true of Communist regimes as well. Senator Thomas J. Dodd, in his introduction to a study by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, gave two specific examples: Cuba and Ghana. In both instances and in spite of overwhelming evidence that Castro and Nkrumah were Communists, U.S. money and support were used to bring them both to power. ("Is U.S. Money Aiding Another Communist State?" Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, United States Senate, 87th Congress Second Session, 3 Dec. 1962, p. 1-3).

Ten years later Ghana was still receiving American monies. In 1972 she was given $16,900,000 in economic aid. (Cong. Rec. 22 Mar. 1973, pp. S5435-42). In the Congo in 1960 the U.S. supported Communist Patrice Lumumba at the exclusion of the pro-Western government of the Katanga province. In Algeria we supported Ben Bella and the Front of National Liberation (FNL) with $73 million right at the time he was bent on destroying all anti-Communist forces in that province. For this purpose Bella also received $100 million in loans from Russia and $80 million from Peking. This aid was followed by another American grant exceeding $47,500,000 ("Communism in Africa," the Freeman Report, 30 Nov. 1976, p. 2). Algeria apparently continues to receive our assistance. She was listed as one of the 115 countries receiving aid in fascial year 1972 and slated to receive $80,300,000 in economic aid. This is considerably more than we granted to South Vietnam and four times our gift to Cambodia. (Cong. Rec., 22 Mar. 1973, pp. S5435-42). Even Sekou Toure, Guinea's Communist dictator has received considerable sums from Uncle Sam. According to the list provided by the government, Guinea received $1,400,000 in gift money for 1972. (Ibid.). Some claim the figure to be much higher. (See "Communism in Africa," the Freeman Report, 30 Nov. 1976, p. 2).


In Angola the United States first put her money behind Communist Holden Roberto and the National Front for the Liberation of Angola (NFLA) who, finding it impossible to defeat the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (PMLA) led by Agostinna Neto, also a Communist, joined forces with the pro-Western and pro-freedom faction, the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (NUTIA), led by Jonas Savimbi. Therefore, the flow of aid to Roberto tapered. "The Russian out spend the U.S. in Angola by more than five times: The result was a Communist victory under Agostinna Neto. (Ibid.). The new rulers of Mozambique are said to be a "gang of Marxist terrorists led by Samora Machel." Henry Kissinger, oblivious to this fact, intended to add Mozambique to the list of those countries thought worthy of American welfare. The first check was expected to be $12.5 million. (Cong. Rec., 10 May 1976, p. S6736).


If Foreign Aid has repeatedly proven to be helpful in bringing Communist countries to power, its denial has been equally effective in allowing former allies to fall. Our denial of aid at the most critical time resulted in the loss of mainland China, and a similar policy had much to do with the ultimate defeat of anti-Communists forces in Cambodia, South Vietnam and Angola. The same policy is presently having its deadly effect in Rhodesia and South Africa where well-funded and well-trained Red Africa terrorists are threatening to seize and destroy those republican and pro- Western governments. Even our contributions to the United Nations have, on occasion, been rediverted to Communist countries. On February 17, 1967, Ezra Taft Benson, former Secretary of Agriculture under Eisenhower, explained to an audience in Portland, Oregon, what happens to foreign aid monies given to the United Nations:

"In many cases our economic aid to the enemy is channeled through the impotent, pro-Communist United Nations Organization. We pay at least 32 percent of all U.N. operation, which cost more than $500 million in 1966.

"We contributed at least 40 percent of the expenses of the International Development Association and the Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development which, according to their own words, `provide systematic assistance in fields essential to technical, economic, and social development of less-developed countries.' As all Communist countries can be classified as `less-developed,' a great deal of U.N. assistance is channeled towards Communist governments. Through the Special Fund, for instance, we covered 40 percent of the costs of an agriculture experimental station in Communist Cuba, and through the United Nations Economic and Social Council we subsidized the University of Havana, which every year is graduating thousands of young Communists." (Ezre Taft Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, Parliament Publishers, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1969, p. 74).

One result of the redistribution functions of the United Nations is a grant of at least $34 million in U.S. aid to Vietnam in 1977, should she gain admittance to that "peace keeping" organization. (Cong. Rec., 19 Jan. 1977, p. E247). President Carter has already announced his support of Vietnam's entrance.

We have outlined rather laboriously and painstakingly our gift-giving to the Communist world. We observe that our "aid and comfort to the enemy" transcends parties, personalities and decades. In fact, it is one of the few pillars of consistency in a foreign policy which on the surface is muddled with inconsistency. Whereas some elements of foreign policy may be attributed to certain parties in power or limited situation, "aid and comfort" cannot. Some force or forces, as indicated by Sutton, and Solzhenitsyn, must be playing a key role in successfully influencing this consistency, which to the average man appears to be a vast multitude of blunders.

We next turn out attention to the possibility that some force or forces are responsible for the predicament in which we find ourselves.


Most of those in attendance at the Washington meeting where Solzhenitsyn suggested the existence of a strange "alliance between our Communist leaders and your Capitalists" may have missed the full impact of the charge. Consider the following.

A majority of Americans naively believe that trade with the USSR is restricted primarily to wheat. Our research has shown otherwise. The consistency, type, and extent of past aid lend decisive support to the hypothesis that forces are at work in the West which are deliberately propelling monies and goods to the Communist world in a manner which operates to its decided advantage. Furthermore, this pattern of voluminous aid transcends both time and party ideologies in the West. Then who is responsible, or what are the forces that have extended their power and good offices to build the Communist empire into the volatile threat which it represents today?

Recognizing the true nature of Marxian ideology and methodology, it makes no sense for the capitalists of the West to build and maintain the Communist world. Theoretically, the capitalists would be the first to be destroyed under a Marxist take-over. Nevertheless, the documented facts of history during the past sixty years clearly demonstrate that the most powerful Western capitalists have been building and maintaining a Communist system of imperialistic power. Such a phenomenon cannot be explained away in terms of stupidly or accidental bumbling.

Corporate bankers and industrialists, who were intelligent enough to survive the disastrous consequences of the Great Depression in the thirties certainly would not have overlooked so consistently and for such a long period of time the Marxist threat of total destruction for the capitalists class in a Communists world. In American academic circles it is popular to treat the capitalists (who have inherited vast dynasties of wealth) as being diametrically opposed to the Communists because they are supposed to be class enemies. Yet they both behave as though they were blood brothers.

We think it is time for the American academic community to reevaluate the evidence. We should begin by discovering from the record precisely who it was that financed and encouraged the expansion of world Communism from its inception.


An examination of the Communist revolution in Russia may unveil some answers for us. In January 1917 we find most of the Communist revolutionaries exiled from Russia by Nicholas II. Trotsky, in particular, merits our attention since he was an exile in New York City. From his autobiography, My Life, we observe that his standard of stylish living in America strongly conflicted with his resources. He had a refrigerator, a telephone, and "occasionally traveled in a chauffeured limousine." With almost no visible means of support, after having paid for a "first-class cell in spain, the Trotsky family had traveled across Europe to the United States, [and] had acquired an excellent apartment in New York - paying rent three months in advance - and they had used a chauffeured limousine."

From New York, Trotsky went to Canada where in April of 1917, the Canadian authorities found $10,000 on his person. Obviously someone was picking up the tab. But who? The debate, among historians, continues as to whether the revolutionist received the $10 million, with which he left New York, from German or American sources. Trotsky, himself denies having received it from the Germans. (Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Arlington House Publishers, Rochelle, New York, 1974, pp. 22- 23). One other observation seems important: Trotsky, traveled to Canada and hence to Russia on an American passport "supplied by the intervention of Woodrow Wilson, and with the declared intention to `carry forward' the revolution." (Ibid., p. 34).


It is understandable why the German government under the Kaiser would have helped the Bolsheviks, since the Communists (Bolsheviks) had promised to remove Russia from the eastern front in World War I if the Germans would help them come to power. And there is no question but what substantial German help was provided. This us clearly indicated from the following quote made on December 3, 1917, by Von Kuhlmann, minister of foreign affairs to the Kaiser:

"It was not until the Bolsheviks had received from us a steady flow of funds through various channels and under varying labels that they were in a position to be able to build up their main organ Provda, to conduct energetic propaganda and appreciably to extend the original narrow base of their party." (Ibid., p. 39).


Even if the Germans had reason to support the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, there seems no plausible excuse for the American government and banking magnates to give them support. Nevertheless, according to exhaustive research by Dr. Antony Sutton in the Canadian, German and U.S. government archives, such support was generously provided and this has been carefully and painstakingly documented. Not only did many American capitalists, primarily in the J.P. Morgan financial empire, sympathize with Bolshevik interests, but they actively called for American economic assistance and diplomatic recognition - primarily the Morgan interests - scarcely disguised their economic assistance to the Communists. This Wall Street assistance to the Bolsheviks alarmed responsible leaders in the Russian provisional government which had just taken control from the Tsar and caused one Moscow newspaper to comment, "Why was the money given the socialist revolutionaries and not to the constitutional democrats? One would suppose the latter must be nearer and dearer to the hearts of bankers." (Ibid., p. 47).

William Boyce Thompson and Raymond Robins were two of the many Wall Street personalities who represented Morgan and associates in Russia during the Revolution. Their sympathy toward the Bolshevik cause is well-documented. We know little about the total extent of their activities, but what has been positively established is decidedly pro-revolutionist.


It may take historians decades to document all the various relationships between the Bolsheviks and Wall Street and the total amount of money transferred into Communist hands. However, Sutton gives us good reason to believe that the sums were considerable.

William B. Thompson, a Morgan affiliate, gave on one occasion a "contribution of $1,000,000 to the Bolsheviks for the purpose of spreading their doctrine in German and Austria." This sum was transferred at the personal request of J.P. Morgan from the National City Bank in New York to its NCB branch on Petrograd, which incidently was the only foreign or domestic Russian bank exempted from the Bolshevik nationalization decree. (Ibid., p. 84). For what it is worth, Thompson was serving at the time as Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The importance of this man in the Russian Revolution may have been crucial to their victory. Sutton concludes:

"Indeed, if Thompson had not been in Russia in 1917, subsequent history might have followed a quite different course. Without the financial and, more important, the diplomatic and propaganda assistance given to Trotsky and Lenin by Thompson, Robins, and their New York associates, the Bolsheviks may well have withered away and Russia evolved into a socialist but constitutional society." (Ibid., p. 89).

We know of another $1 million given to the Bolsheviks by William Sands for, and in behalf of, the American International Corporation, an organization created in 1915 by J.P. Morgan, the Rockefellers, the DuPonts, and other leading Wall Street personalities, for the express purpose of promoting a united effort in overseas expansion. Sands was serving as Executive Secretary of the Corporation. Prior to this time his "career had alternated between the States Department and Wall Street." (Ibid., p. 134).

After Thompson left Russia in December, 1917, Wall Street interests were left in the hands of Raymond Robins, whose sympathies and loyalties were almost identical with Thompson's.


Thompson later proceeded to London where he was joined by Thomas W. Lamont, "a partner in the Morgan firm who was then in Paris with Colonel E.M. House," the top advisor to President Wilson. They joined forces in England to "convince the British War Cabinet - then decidedly anti- Bolshevik - that the Bolshevik regime had come to say, and that British policy should cease to be anti-Bolshevik, should accept the new realities, and should support Lenin and Trotsky." David Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister, was approached and finally agreed to the new secret policy toward the Bolsheviks. According to Donald McCormick, author of the Mask of Merlin, the Prime Minister was influenced rather strongly by Sir Basil Zaharoff, an international armaments dealer, who was strongly pro- Bolshevik. Furthermore, "Lloyd George's personal life would certainly leave him open to blackmail." (Ibid., p. 93).


Once Prime Minister Lloyd George joined the cabal, Lord Milner - heir to the wealthy dynasty of Cecil Rhodes - recruited as the British functionary to the Bolsheviks a man named Bruce Lockhart. Lockhart "was briefed and sent to Russia with instructions to work informally with the Soviets." (Ibid., p. 94). While serving in Russia, Lockhart claimed to have been in contact with Lord Milner on a daily basis.

The French government sent to Russia Jacques Sadoul who was a well-known Bolshevik sympathizer and "an old friend of Trotsky."

The end result of these various maneuvers by Thompson, Lamont, Robins, Lockhart, and Sadoul was to neutralize opposition to the Bolsheviks and insure the survival of the Red revolution in Russia. "Not only did Allied governments neutralize their own government representatives, but the U.S. ignored please form within and without Russia to cease support of the Bolsheviks." (Ibid., 104).


After the successful Bolshevik revolution in Russia, the Red regime did everything possible to establish diplomatic relations with the United States. However, the American political climate was against it, and therefore Col. House and other pro-Bolshevik personalities in the Wilson administration permitted the Soviets to set up a "Soviet Bureau" to facilitate "trade relations" with U.S. firms. The Soviet Bureau was managed by Ludwig C.A.K. Martens, who is sometimes referred to as the first Soviet ambassador to the United States. The Soviets bypassed Washington, D.C. and selected New York as the site for their American headquarters.

According to Scotland Yard Intelligence report, the relationship between the Guaranty Trust Company (J.P. Morgan) and Martens was unusually close: "Martens is very much in the limelight. There appears to be no doubt about his connection with the Guarantee [sic] Trust Company, though it is surprising that so large and influential an enterprise should have dealing with a Bolshevik concern." (U.S. State Dept. Decimal File, 316-22-656, as quoted by Sutton in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, p. 113).

Similar reports show that the Morgan faction was heavily financing the Soviet Bureau, which in turn was working with and giving support to home- grown U.S. Communists such as John Reed, Ludwig Lore, Harry J. Boland, Julius Hammer, and Kenneth Durant. (Ibid., 115-118). What is worse, when some of these Marxian revolutionists like Jacob H. Rubin and Robert Minor got themselves into trouble by spreading revolutionist doctrines in foreign lands, friends in high places in U.S. government circles suddenly appeared to pull them out.


One of several examples is the case of John Reed, a close friend od Lenin and the most well-known American Marxist. Reed was a "member of the Third International, and ... possessed a Military Revolutionary Committee pass giving him entry into the `American Socialist Press.'" Sutton produced convincing evidence that Reed was "under the `control' of the Morgan financial interests through the American International Corporation," and that much of the funding for Reed came from corporate sources. Reportedly, Reed had served on occasion as a White House consultant on Mexican affairs. In mid-1915 Reed was arrested by the Tsar for revolutionary activities in Russia. William Franklin Sands and other Morgan associates immediately put pressure on the State Department to gain Reed's release. They, in turn, put pressure on the Russian government. Reed found himself free, but without his papers. Again friends emerged with sufficient pressure to force the return of these items. In 1920 Reed found himself behind bars in Finland and in danger of being executed. Again friends in high places went to work and John Reed was liberated. Sutton reasons:

"This paradoxical account of intervention in behalf of a Soviet agent can have several explanations. One hypothesis that fits other evidence concerninh Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution is that John Reed was in effect an aganet of the Morgan interests - perhaps only half aware of his double role - that his anti-capitalist writing maintained the valuable myth that all capitalists are in perpetual warfare with all socialist revolutionaries." (Ibid., pp. 137-144).

Returning to our consideration of the Soviet Bureau, Sutton insists, and with good reason, that it "could not have been established without influential assistance came from within the United States. Part of this assistance came from specific influential appointments to the Soviet Bureau staff and part came from business firms outside the bureau, firms that were reluctant to make their support publicly known." (Ibid., p. 118).


The heavy-handed activities of Ludwig Martens and his Soviet Bureau created sufficient hostility to result in the investigation of his activities and an order for his arrest and deportation. In the process, he was brought before a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which was set up to investigate the extent of Soviet activity in the United States.

At the hearings, Martens boasted that a number of the largest banking and business concerns in American were aiding the Soviets. He specifically named U.S. Steel Corporation (owned by Morgan) and the Standard Oil Company (owned by Rockefeller). He asserted that 'most of the big business houses of the country were aiding him in his effort to get the government to recognize the Soviet government." (Ibid., p. 119).


Looking back from today's vantage point, a student of history would seek some logical explanation for Wall Street's support of Martens other than a sinister plot of political subversion. Nevertheless, some disturbing facts clutter the arena. We might start with the proposition that Wall Street was seeking an early recognition of the Soviets because they were in on the ground floor and this would facilitate the setting up of profitable business arrangements before other nations secured a foothold. However, if this were the primary motivation we would expect these Americans of great political and economic prominence to have promoted their objectives openly and through the regular diplomatic channels, not through semi-secret conspiratorial avenues and covert associations spawned by Martens. The evidence indicates that they used both.

We are faced with further fact that the Marxist objectives of the Soviet to foment revolutions and violence throughout the world was well known. We might therefore expect that wealthy capitalists would have been the last of any economic group to encourage this ideology to form a brotherhood with Red ideological forces both in Russia and elsewhere. After all, if Communist propaganda were to be taken at face valve, these men would be the first to be liquidated under a Communist regime. Nevertheless, there is no evidence of any persuasive weight to indicate that these capitalists feared the spread of Marx's ideology either then or now.

All of this is totally out of character for men of the capitalist class. Usually wealth is acquired through years of careful planning and strenuous effort. Every new situation is carefully evaluated in terms of its ultimate impact on the enterprise which the businessman is trying to promote. Miscalculations can be lethal. Blunders are anathema. Both are avoided with immaculate long-range planning and carefully calculated political and economic analysis. Once the realities of the future are determined, the typical business leader will attempt to reduce every element of risk possible so that the top benefits can be realized as the futures unfolds. Given these facts, one would not expect Western business leaders to the top 1% to coddle, protect, promote and preserve the very forces which are committed to liquidate them. Perhaps a few honest mistakes would be made on occasion but not a continuous array of "blunders" and "errors" consistently pushing toward the goal-oriented objects of such a formidable enemy of the West as the Marx-Leninist Soviets.


Through the hundreds of government documents referred to by Dr. Sutton in a variety of books on East-West trade, two massive capitalist conglomerates appear time after time as the ones most responsible for U.S. "aid and comfort" to the enemy. The first is Standard Oil, or the Rockefeller enterprise, and the second is the Morgan complex of industries involving both finance and transportation companies. A brief summary of their power and influence in 1917 reveals some rather awesome dimensions. Prior to World War I, the

"Rockefeller and Morgan Trust alliances dominated not only Wall Street, but through interlocking directorships, almost the entire economic fabric of the United States. Rockefeller interests monopolized the petroleum and allied industries, and controlled the copper trust, the smelter trust, and the gigantic tobacco trust, in addition to having influence in some Morgan properties such as the U.S. Steel Corporation as well as in hundreds of smaller industrial trusts, public service operations, railroads, and banking institutions. National City Bank was the largest of the banks influenced by Standard Oil - Rockefeller - but financial control extended to the United States Trust Company and Hanover National Bank as well as to major life insurance companies - Equitable Life and Mutual of New York.

"The Great Morgan enterprises were in steel, shipping, and the electrical industry; they included General Electric, the rubber trust and railroads. Like Rockefeller, Morgan controlled financial corporations - the national Bank of Commerce and the Chase National Bank, New York Life Insurance, and the Guaranty Trust and Bankers Trust were, respectively, the first and second largest trust companies in the United States, both dominated by Morgan interests." (Ibid., pp. 49-50).


It is generally known that in the 1890s the Rockefellers controlled three- fourths of the world's supply of oil and that in the Depression of 1893 the federal government felt it imperative to borrow from one individual, J.P. Morgan, to pull it out of the depression of that year. At one time Morgan owned four of the five transcontinental railroads then in existence. At the turn of the century he purchased U.S. Steel from Andrew Carnegie and this gave Morgan the first billion dollar corporation in America. It was certainly no minor historical event to have the richest country in the world seeking funds from a single wealthy capitalist to help the United States survive an economic depression.


We find this economic influence of the Morgan-Rockefeller combine not without its counterpart in the political arena. Perhaps a majority of the Presidents in the latter third of the 19th century owed their election more or less directly to Wall Street.

"Because of the narrow margins of victory in each presidential election ... business help was often invaluable in swinging the key votes and decoding the outcome of the election. Thus Garfield's election in 1880 owed much to the fact that John D. Rockefeller instructed his thousands of salesmen in various states in the Middle West to work actively for the Republican ticket." (Allen Weinstein and R. Jackson, An American History: Freedom and Crisis, 1st ed., Random House, Inc., 1974, pp. 529- 531).

The almost total subservience to Wall Street by President McKinley and one-third of the Senate at the turn of the century is certainly no secret: "Industrialists and bankers poured millions into Republican campaign treasuries. Even more important than business involvement in presidential contests, however, was the growing importance of senators who represented large corporate interests. By 1900 such businessmen, most of them Republicans, comprised a third of the Senate." (Ibid., p. 534).


That the great capitalists favored the Republican Party is understandable. The Democrats, at the time, favored "belief that government should not meddle actively in the economic lives of Americans," while the Republicans insisted that such meddling was both necessary and proper. Only the Republicans could give the Capitalists the advantages they desired from the government, such as tax breaks, subsidies, franchises and other legislative favors. The relationship worked both ways. "To encourage economic development, party leaders aided business in every possible way. In accomplishing this purpose, they forged an informal alliance between the national government and the great majority of businessmen - bankers, industrialists, and merchants in foreign trade." (Ibid., p. 532).


After detailing the enormous power of Wall Street in the latter part of the 19th century, it is customary for historians to point out that a strong wave of public reaction set in which resulted in the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, to put down monopolies. This so-called "Progressive Movement" was responsible to a large extent for the popularity of "trust-buster" Theodore Roosevelt. It is represented that as a result of the public outrage against monopolies, the Carnegies, the Morgans, and the Rockefellers were brought to their knees. Did this really happen?


At least one economist, Dr. D.T. Armentano, author of The Myths of Anti- Trust, has come forward boldly to challenge "the sacred myth of anti- trust." Following an exhaustive analysis of American anti-trust legislation and litigation, the author concludes:

"Anti-trust law has always been ambiguous, the theoretical foundations of anti-trust have always been faulty, and the empirical `evidence' has always been nonexistent....

"Is there business monopoly in the present system? Of course there is. Government favors, privileges, patents, subsidies, tariffs, and franchises can and do allow certain corporations to hold and employ `monopoly power,' i.e., government power for economic advantage....

"The essence of the monopoly in the market place is governmental. In this light, anti-trust may be seen as a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the real monopolistic problems - the developing plutocratic relationship between business and government.... Anti-trust, therefore, may be an even bigger hoax than anyone has imagined." (Arlington House, New Rochelle, New York, 1972).

But what about the Sherman Act of 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914? Have they not shackled monopolies? Professor George Stigler of the University of Chicago says: "No!" His study of the impact of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act revealed that the act "had only a very modest effect in reducing concentration." (Ibid., p. 8). Senate document no. 93-62, "Disclosure of Corporate Ownership," tends to confirm this. Twenty giant banking aggregates control a giant share of American capital interest - perhaps as much as 30%." (Report prepared by the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, and Budgeting, Management and Expenditures of the Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Senate, 4 Mar. 1974).


The great monopolies of the late 19th century originated, in part, because businessmen sought and received special concessions from government. To insure the continuance of these favors and to obtain other concessions, economic interests found it natural and necessary to exert influence on the political system. Under free enterprise capitalism, the merchant is subject to numerous forces, some of them resulting from the merchant's own inadequacy, some from the powers of government, some from competitors, and others from sources which are difficult to identify. Under competitive free enterprise the merchant seeks to control or rid himself of all variables which pose a threat to his interests. This may lead him to seek government protection and result in monopoly capitalism. Dr. M. Bruce Johnson, Professor of Economics, explains it this way:

"In spite of much diversionary rhetoric on monopoly capitalism, the facts suggest that the government creates and preserves many more monopolies than it eliminates. The overwhelming majority of government efforts to regulate private industries do in fact promote monopolies or cartels by the firms that were supposed to be made more competitive....

"Once the government and the established forms in a regulated industry reach their accommodation, they pursue their common interests; to insulate the industry from internal price competition, to close the industry to potential entrants, and to exercise control of prices and other variables in the interests of security predictablity." ("Monopoly," World Research, Inc., p.1).

In other words, government help create monopolies, and monopolistic capitalism seeks to preserve itself by destroying free enterprise capitalism. This whole process has not been widely recognized.

The public has been led to believe that the "breaking up of the big trusts" (such as Standard Oil) actually dissipated the power of monopoly which these capitalist combines previously imposed on the economy and politial life of the nation. However, Dr. Armantano, Dr. Suton and other researchers have found that the employment of interlocking directorates, proxy-vote stock manipulations, etc., have not only allowed the major capitalists to perpetuate their power, but in some cases to increase it.

Therefore, they seem to have felt fairly secure in being able to protect themselves from public exposure or government interference as they launched into the highly dangeroud enterprise of forming an alliance with the Red revolutionaries toward the close of World War II.


In his book, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Dr. Antony Sutton documents the fact that it was primarily the Morgan and Rockefeller complexes which acted in concert with a number of other American-European dynastic capitalists to promote and finance the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. These included Dmitri Rubenstein of the Russo-French bank in Petrograd, Abram Givatovzo, a Stockholm banker, Gregory Lessine from the firm of Darel and Hagborg, Stifter and Jakob Berline from the Petrograd Nelkens Bank, and Gregory Benenson of the Russian and English Bank in Petrograd. (pp. 121-122)


Sutton believes these bankers had one thing in common-the prospect of rich profit. He holds that trade control of Russia was the prize the banking interests of the West were seeking; that the one thing desired most was to keep Russia as a market for eco-nomic exploitation by the dynastic banking interests. A restrictive, tyrannical form of government would accomplish that objective, whereas a republic similar to America might allow Russia to become a capitalistic nation and a competitive threat. (Ibid.. pp.172-173) However, the present writer, along with others, detects a somewhat broader motive than Sutton cares to give to the available evidence. There is simply too much goal-directed activity promoting Marxian-oriented governments to assume that only the profit motive is responsible for it.

Assistance to the Bolsheviks by the dynastic banking interests of the West did not end with the Revolution nor apparently has it done so since. The Soviets in 1918 were beset by a number of external and internal problems. Outside influence was vital to insure their hold on Russia and to subdue remaining opposition. As of 1918 the Soviets occupied but a mere fraction of the old imperial domain. "To subdue the remainder, they needed foreign arms, imported food, outside financial support, diplomatic recognition, and-above all-foreign trade.... The New York bankers and lawyers provided significant-in some cases critical-assistance for each of these tasks." (Ibid., pp. 145-146) Again the names American international Corporation, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., and Guaranty Trust-all Morgan and Rockefeller subsidiaries-emeged from the pages of history as most responsible for assistance in these areas. The situation in the newly formed Soviet Union was so critical by March 15, 1921, that Lenin informed the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party as follows:

"Without the assistance of capital it will be impossible for us to retain proletarian power in an incredibly ruined country in which the peasantry, also ruined, constitutes the overwhelming majority-and, of course, for this assistance capital will squeeze their hundreds of percent out of us. This is what we have to understand. Hence, either this type of economic relations or nothing...." (V.I. Lenin, Report to the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party. 15 March 1921, as reported by Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, p. 157)


One other observation should be mentioned before we conclude our brief analysis of Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. The same corporate dynastic organizations which were pouring funds into the Red revolutionaries in Russia organized the United Americans "whose sole purpose would be to combat the teachings of socialists, communists, I.W.W., Russian organizations and radical farmers societies." This organization, "United Americans," which was created in 1920, hoped to attract five million members.

The "United Americans" was, at first glance, exactly the kind of organization that establishment capitalists would be expected to finance and join. The propaganda emitting from this cluster of influence was high pitched and extremely emotional. Scare stories were circulated about a "Red invasion of the United States within two years" financed by $20 million "obtained by the murder and robbery of the Russian nobility." The Red revolution, accompanied by much bloodshed, was to begin in New York City and spread across the nation. The number of these radical Red revolutionaries expected to invade the United States was estimated by the United Americans as being from 3 to 5 million. (Ibid. pp. I64-I66)

The major difference between the way the Morgan-Rockefeller interests promoted "United Americans," and the way they financed and promoted the Bolshevik Revolution, was the fact that the former was boldly done in the open while the latter was done secretly, "recorded only in government files, and not to be made public for 50 years." (Ibil.. p.166)


There is no doubt but what "United Americans" served as a cover for the Wall Street interests which were deeply involved in the Soviet take-over of Russia, but it did arouse the American people against a strong radical influence which did exist, particularly among recent immigrants from Russia and eastern Europe. When Attorney General Mitchell Palmer conducted a roundup of these elements for deportation, it was often described in later histories as the "Palmer raids," and the Attorney General was accused of having "indiscriminately arrested and deported innocent citizens." Dr. Sutton points out that such histories ignore the fact that the deportations were based on known criminal records and other overt activities by the deportees which reflected radical or revolutionary sympathies of the Soviet variety. This was further borne out by the large number who requested to be deported to Russia where they could live under the new Communist regime.

It is historically significant that after heavily financing the inflamatory propaganda of the "United Amer-icans," and demanding legal action to thwart the alleged Red Revolution supposedly pending, the dynastic capitalists turned around and used their influence to discredit the so-called "irresponsible" and indiscriminate" activities of the Attorney General by describing his actions as "witch-hunting." This put the tar-brush to any sincere scholar or Congressional committee who later tried to honestly and objectively dtsclose the nature and danger of the Marxist revolutionary ideology. In fact, this created a climate for Marxist collectivism which the dynastic capitalists began to finance and promote in American educa-tional institutions and certain popular journals.


Once more we return to the persistent question of why the wealthy capitalists would ally themselves with the Communists. As pointed out earlier, a successful capitalist and a revolutionary Marxist should be deadly enemies. It is only when we identify the goals of a "monopoly" capitalist and a Red revolutionary that we recognize their common denominators. Both seek to destroy competition and control the total market. Both seek to accomplish their goals through the powers of strong, centralized government. Just when the monopoly capitalists recognized the natural affinity which existed between themselves and the Communist vanguard is difficult to say, but the seizure of government either by revolutionary violence (as in Russia) or manipulating the political process (as in the United States) seems to have drawn the two forces into an agreeable alliance far earlier than many had supposed.


As Dr. Sutton explains it, "the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers." (Wall Street And the Bolshevik Revolution, p.17). To believe that the capitalists would restrict themselves to a captive market only in the United States is short-sighted.

Evidence indicates that the economic interests and political influence of the dynastic capitalists have penetrated deeply into the socialist and Communist states on a world-wide basis. Sutton, Keller and others have extensively documented this development which has been occurring throughout the century.

Of course, that in and of itself is not necessarily evil unless their activities obviously conflict with the interests, purposes and principles set forth in the Constitution. Should the operations of the dynastic capitalists actually be found undermining or destroying these principles, then their activities should be exposed and steps taken to prevent their further expansion. In other words, when loyalty to private gain and a monopoly of power supersedes loyalty to country and conscience, then it should be recognized as a threat to the national interest and appropriate action taken to thwart its designs.

A vast array of accumulating evidence would mediate that this has been happening. It appears that these capitalists have used their massive influence and power during most of this century to manipulate political decisions both at home and abroad so as to mold events to conform to their own selfish interests even though it was obvious that the long-range thrust of those efforts would seriously impair the interests of the United States.

To achieve these ends, it has been discovered that there have been numerous behind-the-scenes arrangements, deals, and promises, sometimes with the avowed enemy of the West and often at serious variance with our own national interests. To pull it off, the influence over the major media would be required since the masses must be prevented from discovering the truth, and at the same time conditioned to accept the changes which the new collectivist world order would impose upon them.


Two rather recent examples - should help to crystallize this point. One deals with the Eaton-Rockefeller combination. On January 16, 1967, an article entitled Eaton Joins Rockefeller to Spur Trade with Reds" appeared in the New York Times. The story began:

"An alliance of family banking fortunes linking Wall Street and the Midwest is going to try to build economic bridges between the free world and Communist Europe. The International Basic Economy Corporation, controlled by the Rockefeller Brothers, and Tower International, Inc., headed by Cyrus S. Eaton, Jr., Cleveland financier, plan to cooperate in promoting trade between the Iron Curtain countries, including the Soviet Union, and the United States, Canada, and Latin America. The International Basic Economy Corporation was organized in 1947 under the principal direction of Nelson A. Rockefeller, now New York Governor."
The fact that the United States was at the time at war with the Communist world did not appear to deter the planners. The report continued:
"The joint effort contemplated by I.B.E. and Tower is seen as combining the investment skills and resources of the Rockefellers and the special entree to Soviet bloc officialdom that Tower enjoys largely as a result of contacts cultivated over the last 15 years by Cyrus S. Eaton, Sr. The elder Eaton has been an outspoken advocate of closer ties between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. He has backed his convictions by visiting Russia and entertaining high Soviet leaders-including former Premier Khrushchev." (Ibid.)

Those familiar with Mr. Eaton, Sr., know of his close friendships with Soviet leaders. Reportedly "he is the only private American citizen known ever to entertain top Soviet officials." He accepted elaborate gifts from Premier Khrushchev and entertained him at his Ohio farm. "When Khrushchev was deposed, Eaton found no difficulty in transferring his loyalty to Alexci Kosygin, the new Soviet Premier, whom he entertained at his Pugwash estate in New Brunswick, Canada." (Ibid.)


In 1924 arrangements were made to set up the Amtorg Trading Corporation in the United States as a Soviet government commercial agency. J. Edgar Hoover frequently referred to the Amtorg Corporation as little more than a Soviet base to "fulfill their assignments of clandestine espionage." (Ibid.)

By 1967 Eaton explained that Amtorg had been experiencing great difficulty in making transfer arrangements with American companies. Mr. Eaton wished to provide the influence to facilitate Soviet negotiations with large American industries. "As you can imagine," Eaton said, "it is almost impossible for a Russian to walk into the research department of an American aerospace company and try to arrange the purchase of a patent."The solution, readily agreeable to the Russians, was to let Eaton and Rockefeller do it for them. The new trade combination "will act for Amtorg, by its authority, as its official agent in the United States. The Rockefellers and the Eatons will thus have monopoly control of American trade with the USSR, controlling both the American and Russian ends." (Ibid.)

Eaton was already able to announce commitments for the construction of ten rubber goods plants in five Eastern European countries. "These people," said Eaton, "are setting up new automobile plants and know they have got to have tire factories." He forgot to mention that Western technology was also responsible for the automobile plants. Construction of "a $50 million aluminum plant in Yugoslavia" was also scheduled. (Ibid.)


An example of direct aid to Communist armed forces engaged in open hostilities against the United States and her allies occurred during the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. The Washington Observer reported on September 15, 1974:

"During the Korean War and the recent Vietnam War, Soviet Russia, whose oilfields, except for a few very minor ones on Sakhalin Island, are too remote, was unable to supply the Communist satellite countries in the Far East across more than 20,000 miles of ocean. So the Soviets went shopping on the international oil market and made a deal with the world oil cartel to provide most of the liquid fuels for the Communist war machines in Korea and Vietnam." ("Bloody oil," Washington Observer Newsletter, no. 185, 15 Sept. 1974. p. I)
Reportedly the World Oil Cartel, comprising numerous companies, set up "a giant pool that mixes crude oils from the various producing areas and distributes the blends thus obtained, as well as the refined products, to the consuming countries." Standard Oil of New Jersey, and Socony Vacuum, both Rockefeller aggregates, have the "leading role in the production allocation and pricing" of the product. The Report continues:
"To supply the oil and oil products the Soviets needed for their war material in Korea and Vietnam, the Rockefeller interests used mainly the Arabian-American Oil Company (ARAMCO), which is jointly owned by Standard Oil of California (30%), Texaco (30%), Standard Oil of New Jersey (30%) and Socony Vacuum (10%).

"Because Indonesian oilfields and refineries owned by Standard Oil of California were situated nearer the theaters of operations of the Korean and Vietnam wars, the Rockefeller interests used Sumatra oil and oil products to fill out the Soviet orders at Palambang, Sumatra, where Cal Stan received an equivalent in crude from the Rockefeller portion of ARAMCO production, in accordance with the secret value schedules used for intra-cartel bartering."

For this the Communists were most appreciative and responded by guaranteeing that "the Cartel's oil installations in Vietnam, including the service stations run by the members of the Cartel in the war zone, would be out-of-bounds for the Communist guerrillas for the whole duration of the Vietnam conflict.

"Also, in recognition of the cooperative attitude of the Oil Cartel the Soviets promised to honor the concessions the members of the Oil Cartel received in South Vietnam and grant them a similar status as sanctuaries-off bounds to the Communist forces in Indochina." (Ibid.)

Not to be outdone by the generosity of the Communists, as the report explains, "the U.S. Navy and Air Force kept religiously away from the so-called 'Hanoi Depression' in the Gulf of Tonkin when Soviet technicians drilled an exploration well there in the spring of 1970, at the height of the Vietnam War." (Ibid.)


Mention has already been made of the incongruous elements of an ideological accommodation between Communist revolutionaries and monopoly capitalists. However, these apparent contradictions in such a relationship virtually disappeared when Congressional committees discovered an extremely close relationship between Communists and capitalists in the vigorous propagation of Marxist ideology by the wealthy foundations which had been set up as tax shelters by the largest corporate trusts. Both the Cox and Reece Congressional committees found many of the multi-million dollar foundations deeply involved in promoting anti-American propaganda in the educational system, while at the same time defending and spreading the collectivist philosophy of Marx-Leninism. These committees, in kindness, usually referred to this propaganda as merely the "ideology of the Left."

The Committees discovered that over a period of half a century or more, the foundations had been exerting a tremendous influence on the American culture by working through educational channels. The Committees were deeply concerned with the direction this influence had taken:

"The power of the individual large foundation is enormous. It can exercise various forms of patronage which carry with them elements of thought control. It can exert immense influence on educational institutions, upon the educational processes, and upon educators. It is capable of invisible coercion through the power of its purse. It can materially predetermine the development of social and political concepts and courses of action through the process of granting and withholding foundation awards upon a selective basis, and by designing and promulgating projects which propel researchers in selected directions. It can play a powerful part in the determination of academic opinion, and, through this thought leadership, materially influence public opinion." ("Tax-Exempt Foundations," Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations, House of Representatives, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session House Report No. 2681, 16 Dec. 1954. p.17)
Foundations Pushing American Education to the Collectivist Left The Committee expressed deep concern with the millions of dollars being distributed each year to various educational institutions wherein the money was spent hiring professors chosen by the foundation and teaching concepts alien to traditional American values:
"The impact of foundation money upon education has been very heavy, largely tending to promote uniformity in approach, and method, tending to induce the educator to become an agent for social change and a propagandist for the development of our society in the direction of some form of collectivism. Foundations have supported text books (and books intended for inclusion in collateral reading lists) which are destructive of our basic governmental and social principles and highly critical of some of our cherished institutions." (Ibid.)

"Rather than distribute money without strings attached, foundations favor projects of their own and supply the recipient institutions not only with the program, but also with the staff and the detailed operations budget so that the project is actually under control of the foundation, while professionally benefiting from the prestige of the recipient institution. The choice of professors often is one by the foundation and not one by the university. Foundation employees frequently switch from work in the foundation, or in the councils supported by the foundation, to work on sponsored projects and in professional organizations supported by their funds. They become most influential in the professional organizations, are elected to presidencies and generally rule the research industry. (Ibid.. p.46)


Although foundations are restricted in the support of specific political candidates, the Congressional Committee found that the policy of the foundations was to promote a line of propaganda which would favor left-wing political personalities:

"Accompanying these directions in research grants, the concentration has shown a distinct tendency to favor political opinions to the left. These foundations and their intermediaries engage extensively in political activity, not in the form of direct support of political candidates or political parties, but in the conscious promotion of carefully calculated political concepts. The qualitative and quantitative restrictions of the Federal Law are wholly inadequate to prevent this misuse of public trust funds." (Ibid.. p.18)


The Congressional Committee felt that the larger foundations acted in concert when it came to pushing the idea of global government and phasing out the sovereignty of the United States. They found this influence affecting governmental policies as well as the academic field:

"In the international field, foundations, and an interlock among some of them and certain intermediary organizations, have exercised a strong effect upon our foreign policy and upon public education in things international. This has been accomplished by vast propaganda, by supplying executives and advisers to government and by controlling much research in this area through the power of the purse. The next result of these combined efforts has been to promote 'internationalism' in a particular sense-a form directed toward 'world government' and a derogation of American 'nationalism.' Foundations have supported a conscious distortion of history, propagandized blindly for the United Nations as the hope of the world, supported that organization's agencies to an extent beyond general public acceptance, and leaned toward a generally 'Leftist' approach to international problems." (Ibid.)


Marxist philosophy contains numerous tactical strategies designed to weaken and eventually destroy free enterprise economies and the traditional independence and freedom of nations such as the United States. The Committee found ample evidence that the foundations were using their influence in many governmental and public areas to implement these tactics, practically in the planning agencies which they financed:

"According to the Committee, the Social Planning agencies, particularly the National Planning Board, the National Resources Committee, and the National Resources Planning Board have had a tremendous affect upon the decisions made by government. The Committee reported that these foundations spawned and sponsored agencies which consciously planned for what can fairly be called, at least, a semi-socialist economy..., a definite political and economic propulsion to the left and away from our traditional forms." (Ibid.. p.132)

The Congressional Committee cited numerous examples of foundation funding of persons and organizations which supported the "conviction that free enterprise was dead and a new order must be ushered in, an order of collectivism." The interplay between foundation-spawned or sponsored learned societies and the government cannot be exaggerated. One example may illustrate this point:

"The Commission on Higher Education appointed by the President produced a report in the form of six pamphlets in 1947. The President of the American Council of Learned Societies was chairman of this Commission. The report gave credit to The American Council of Learned Societies, The American Council on Education, The American Association of University Professors and the Association of Land Grant Colleges and Universities for aid received. "This report emphasized that higher education must be guided to help usher in the new society. Not only was the domestic scene to be changed by a concerted effort on the part of the intellectual leaders of the nation, but we were to be led toward world citizenship as well." (Ibid.. pp. I4I-I42)
The Report of the President's Commission on Higher Education called for a political, social, and psychological one-world order: teachers and scholars were "to lead the way toward a new way of thinking." (Ibid.)


The foundation most frequently mentioned in regard to the radical movement in education was the Rockefeller Foundation, with the Carnegie and Ford Foundations following closely behind. The spear-head organizations primed by the foundations to "convert our schools into vehicles for radical social change" were the League for Industrial Democracy, the National Education Association and the International Education Board. According to testimony received, one of these organizations, notably the NEA, not only actively promoted the interests of the foundations, but has also "been aggressive in its smearing' of Americans who opposed its policies.... The NEA is one of the leading advocates of the Declaration of Interdependence. The Committee wrote, "It would be interesting to aggregate the total funds poured by foundations into the dissemination of Leftist propaganda and compare it with the tiny trickle which flowed into an exposition of the fallacies and frailties of collectivism." The Committee concluded that "few of the major foundations do much, if any-thing, in the way of an affirmative defense of existing institutions." (Ibid., pp. 146-147)

According to testimony of former Communist leader Manning Johnson, who was a member of the Party's National Committee, it was no secret as to the foundations' which were considered instruments promulgating the Party's policies. Among those not previously mentioned were the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation and the Rosenwald Fund. (Ibid., pp. 196-197)


The Committee found that the effect of foundation power in foreign affairs is extreme. There is no ques-tion but what it is the single most influential force shaping our direction in matters international. A review of the evidence gathered by the Reece Committee indicates that it is unlikely that any major move in foreign policy matters for several decades had been made without the influential hand of the foundations. Not only does the government depend mainly upon foundation-sponsored learned societies for foreign policy studies and advisement personnel, but they also have gained a hold on the State Department itself. There appears to be an "interlock between the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and some of its associated organizations, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, and other foundations with the State Department" which, according to the Committee, "these foundations and organizations would not dream of denying...; in fact, they proudly note it in reports. They have," wrote the Committee, "undertaken vital research projects for the Department; virtually created minor departments or groups within the Department for it; supplied advisers and executives from their ranks; fed a constant stream of personnel into the State Department trained by them-selves or under programs which they have financed; and have had much to do with the formulation of foreign policy both in principle and detail. They have, to a marked degree, acted as direct agents of the State Department. And they have engaged actively, and with the expenditure of enormous sums, in propagandizing ('educating-public opinion) in support of the policies which they have helped to formulate....,' (Ibid., pp. 181-182)

The Committee minced no words as it identified the most offending foundations and their affiliate organizations before describing their globalist viewpoint. They wrote:

"What we see here is a number of large foundations, primarily The Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, using their enormous public funds to finance a one-sided approach to foreign policy and to promote it actively among the public by propaganda, and in the Government through infiltration.... Research and propaganda by those of the persuasion opposite that of the agencies of these foundations (The Council on Foreign Relations, The Institute of International education, The 'Foreign Policy Association, the Institute of Pacific Relations, and others) receive little support.

"It may well be said that a majority of the 'experts' in the international field are on the side of globalism. It would be amazing if this were otherwise, after so many years of gigantic expenditure by foundations in virtually sole support of the globalist point of view." (Ibid., p. 112)

Apparently the foundations made no attempt to deny their influence and one-world point of view. The Committee wrote:
"The weight of evidence before this Committee, which the foundations have made no serious effort to rebut, indicates that the form of - globalism which the foundations have so actively promoted and from which our foreign policy has suffered seriously, relates definitely to a collectivist point of view. Despite vehement disclaimers of bias, despite platitudinous affirmations of loyalty to American traditions, the statements filed by those foundations whose operation touch on foreign policy have produced no rebuttal to the evidence of support of collectivism." (Ibid., p. 169)


Apparently there were those who felt threatened by the Cox and Reece Committees. When the Reece staff began to study the hundreds of documents gathered by the Cox Committee, Reece reports, "our staff was distressed to find that much of the data collected and memoranda prepared by the previous staff were missing from the files." The Committee also observed a great deal of resistance on the part of the Internal Revenue Service in particular. They refused to surrender some documents and placed more severe restrictions on the use of others. (Ibid., pp.14) Most of the foundations responded cordially but a few resisted from the first and intensified their resistance as the investigation progressed. (Ibid.. pp. 211-212) A select few, mostly those where subversive activities were discovered, objected vehemently and abusively from the onset of the inquiry.


According to the Reece Committee, the principal foundations, and the capitalist hierarchies back of them had sufficient power over the media and the channels of governmental authority to prevent the Committee from fully investigating the extent of their operations or even getting what had been discovered to the American people. The Committee practically admitted that the power of the foundations and their sponsors was too big to be exposed and it never would be exposed unless an "unhampered Congressional investigation" could be conducted. All of the Committees to date have been severely hampered. The Committee concluded:

"The far-reaching power of the large foundations, and of the interlock, has so influenced the press, the radio, and even the government that it has become extremely difficult for objective criticism of foundation practices to get into news channels without having first been distorted, slanted, discredited, and at times ridiculed. Nothing short of an unhampered Congressional investigation could hope to bring Out the vital facts; and the pressure against Congressional investigation has been almost incredible. As indicated by their arrogance in dealing with this committee, the major foundations and their associated intermediary organizations have entrenched themselves behind a totality of power which presumes to place them beyond serious criticism and attack." (Ibid.)

A review of literally thousands of pages of Congressional reports, as well as the writings of careful researchers who have analyzed the evidence of a tangible alliance between the forces of revolutionary Communism and the leaders of multi-national capitalism, strongly suggests that the supportive relationship between these two seemingly hostile camps is three-pronged. First of all, it is clear that there has been a strong economic alliance between these two camps and that the wealthy capitalists of the West have consistently rescued the Communists from oblivion each time their system has threatened to collapse. Secondly, it is surprising but equally obvious that, for reasons which are not always clear, there does exist a common denominator of ideological compatibility between the two forces which is both defended and promoted as though it were a "common cause." Thirdly, one cannot escape the conclusion that both of these powerful agencies of world influence seem to share the strong mutual conviction that the human race must be molded into a single monolithic system of world-wide economic and political control.

This writer has come to the conclusion that it is impossible to understand or interpret the true significance of the amazing developments which have occurred during the past century unless this three-pronged reality is given full historical, economic and political consideration.

Dr. Harold W. Pease and wife Jeannene are the parents of seven children. He received his doctorate from Brigham Young University in August 1974. Immediately thereafter he was employed as the historian on the B.Y.U. Centennial Committee. This was followed by 24 years of teaching political science and U.S. History at two California colleges. This time period was broken only to serve for a few months in 1979 as an advisor to the Constitutional Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate. At different times during those interim years he was a political columnist in about twenty newspapers and did a daily five-minute-radio spot, "In Defense of the Constitution," on several California stations.

Index Links Home

This page has been visited times. Nedstat Counter