Скачать fb2
The Naked Communist

The Naked Communist


    The Naked Communist was a best seller in the early 1960s, selling more than 1.5 million copies. It found its way into the libraries of the CIA, the FBI, the White House, and homes all across America and overseas in Spanish and excerpted in other languages.
    In this hard-hitting book an urgent need is finally fulfilled. In one exciting, readable volume, the incredible story of Communism is graphically told. We believe this to be the most vivid and comprehensive book on the subject ever published. It contains a distillation of more than a hundred books and treatises on Communism, many written by Marxist authors. We see the Communist the way he sees himself—stripped of propaganda and pretense. Hence the title, “The Naked Communist.” Here is explained Communism’s amazing appeal, its history, and its basic and unchanging concepts—even its secret time-table of conquest! Vital questions are clearly answered—Who gave Russia the A-bomb? How did the FBI fight the battle of the underground? Why did the West lose 600 million allies after World War II? What really happened in Korea? What is Communism’s great secret weapon? Is there an answer to Communism? What lies ahead?
    Best viewed with CoolReader.



    One of the most fantastic phenomena of modern times has been the unbelievable success of the Communist conspiracy to enslave mankind. Part of this has been the result of two species of ignorance—ignorance concerning the constitutional requirements needed to perpetuate freedom, and secondly, ignorance concerning the history, philosophy and strategy of World Communism.
    This study is designed to bring the far-flung facts about Communism into a single volume. It contains a distillation of more than one hundred books and treatises—many of them written by Communist authors. It attempts to present the Communist in his true native elements, stripped of propaganda and pretense. Hence, the title, “The Naked Communist.”
    Students in the western part of the world have a tendency to shy away from the obscure complexity of Communism because they have a feeling they are groping about in a vacuum of un-known quantities. It therefore became the author’s objective many years ago to try and clarify these concepts so that they could be more readily understood and thereby become less frightening. The most terrifying of all human fears is “fear of the unknown” and consequently it seemed highly desirable to disarm the Communist revolutionists of any such supreme advantage by spreading before the student the whole picture of Marxism which is simply “modern materialism in action.”
    A panoramic study of Communism might easily degenerate into a long list of dates, names, and platitudes without helping the student to gain a genuine understanding of the history and philosophy of Marxism. Therefore, in this study, an attempt has been made to present Communism as the living, breathing, vibrating force in the earth which it really is. The political development, the philosophy, the economic theory and the big names in World Communism have all been presented in their historical setting.
    Since an ever increasing number of disillusioned Communist officials have fled from behind the Iron Curtain, it has been possible to remove much of the mystery which formerly obscured a correct understanding of the Marxian-disciplined mind. This study therefore presents the Marxian civilization without reference to its propaganda claims but within the realm of reality where, during each passing day, millions of human beings are vicariously learning for the rest of the race the true meaning of life under Communism.
    To those who have never taken occasion to study the past one hundred years of Marxism, this presentation may at first seem somewhat harsh. But that is because the exposed seams of Communism are inherently harsh. Marx designed it that way. From a comfortable armchair in a cloistered study it is sometimes difficult for a student to catch the spirit and substance of Communism in action. But the Korean veteran, the Iron Curtain refugee, the returning ambassador from Moscow—these who have felt the physical and psychological impact of World Communism—may count this study under-drawn and overconservative.
    The reader should be warned that the complex nature of Communism prevents some of this material from being geared to rapid reading. Sometimes whole volumes have been digested into a few paragraphs. It will be helpful to the reader if sufficient time is taken to explore rather thoroughly the technical or philosophical chapters before proceeding. To help the reader identify the most significant points in the text, a list of preliminary questions is presented at the beginning of each chapter. While seeking to be brief, the author hopes he has not been obscure.
    There are many to whom I am indebted for assistance, suggestions and technical data used in connection with the preparation of this work. Since the writing and much of the research was completed while I was a member of the faculty of Brigham Young University I received much valuable help from the members of the faculty as well as the administrative staff. I am also indebted to several of my former associates in the FBI with whom I studied Communist philosophy, Communist subversion and Communist espionage during my sixteen years with that organization.
    The impressive vignette illustrations heading each chapter throughout this book are the work of the famous American artist, Arnold Friberg. They exemplify his ability to condense a complex idea into a simple, forceful, pictorial symbol. His magnificent gallery of Biblical paintings which he did for Cecil B. DeMille’s production of “The Ten Commandments” has been widely acclaimed during their worldwide tour of exhibition. I am proud to have the text of these pages enhanced by the talented hand of such a good friend.
    Another close associate, Keith Eddington, is responsible for the striking jacket and impressive design of this book.
    The tedious task of typing the manuscript and reams of research data for the project was capably performed by Velora Gough Stuart and Louise Godfrey.
    The bulk of the credit for the final completion of the work should go to my wife who efficiently managed the affairs of eight robust offspring while their father completed the research and writing for the manuscript. I am deeply grateful to all those who contributed time, skill and encouragement to bring the work to final fruition.

    W. Cleon Skousen
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    November 1, 1958

The Rise of the Marxist Man

    It is a terrible and awesome thing when a man sets out to create all other men in his own image. Such became the goal and all consuming ambition of Karl Marx. Not that he would have made each man equal to himself; in fact, it was quite the contrary. The image he hoped to construct was a great human colossus with Karl Marx as the brain and builder and all other men serving him as the ears and eyes, feet and hands, mouth and gullet. In other words, Marx surveyed the world and dreamed of the day when the whole body of humanity could be forced into a gigantic social image which conformed completely to Marx’s dream of a perfect society.
    To achieve his goal, Marx required two things: First, the total annihilation of all opposition, the downfall of all existing governments, all economies and all societies. “Then,” he wrote, “I shall stride through the wreckage a creator!” The second thing he needed was a new kind of human being.
    He visualized a regimented breed of Pavlovian men whose minds could be triggered into immediate action by signals from their masters. He wanted a race of men who would no longer depend upon free will, ethics, morals or conscience for guidance. Perhaps, without quite realizing it, Marx was setting out to create a race of human beings conditioned to think like criminals.
    Producing such a race had been the dream of power-hungry men for more than 4000 years. Nimrod had projected the design, Plato polished it, Saint Simon sublimated it—now Marx materialized it.
    Today this breed of criminally conditioned man walks the earth in sufficient numbers to conquer countries or continents, to change laws and boundaries, to decree war or peace. He might well be called Homo-Marxian—the Marxist Man. He has made it terribly clear that he intends to become the man of the twentieth century.
    Homo-Marxian is frightening and puzzling to the rest of humanity because a criminally conditioned mind does not respond the way normal people expect.
    For example, if a well meaning person invited a professional criminal into his home for dinner the shifty eyed guest would be likely to survey the fine variety of choice foods, the expensive silverware and shiny goblets, and completely miss the warm sincerity and friendship which the host was trying to convey. In fact, the criminal mind would probably conclude that his host was not only soft hearted but soft headed. Eventually, he would get around to deciding that such a weak man could not possibly deserve so many fine things. Then he would spend the rest of the evening figuring out how he could return in the darkness of the night and relieve his host of all his bounteous treasures.
    Anyone familiar with the history of Communist leadership during the past one hundred years will immediately recognize this same kind of mind at work. The flagrant abuse of U.S. friendship and generosity during World War II is typical.
    Homo-Marxian puzzles all those who try to work with him because he seems irrational and therefore unpredictable. In reality, however, the Marxist Man has reduced his thinking to the lowest common denominator of values taken from nature in the raw. He lives exclusively by the jungle law of selfish survival. In terms of these values he is rational almost to the point of mathematical precision. Through calm or crisis his responses are consistently elemental and therefore highly predictable.
    Because Homo-Marxian considers himself to be made entirely of the dust of the earth, he pretends to no other role. He denies himself the possibility of a soul and repudiates his capacity for immortality. He believes he had no creator and has no purpose or reason for existing except as an incidental accumulation of accidental forces in nature.
    Being without morals, he approaches all problems in a direct, uncomplicated manner. Self-preservation is given as the sole justification for his own behavior, and “selfish motives” or “stupidity” are his only explanations for the behavior of others. With Homo-Marxian the signing of fifty-three treaties and subsequent violation of fifty-one of them is not hypocrisy but strategy. The subordination of other men’s minds to the obscuring of truth is not deceit but a necessary governmental tool. Marxist Man has convinced himself that nothing is evil which answers the call of expediency. He has released himself from all the confining restraints of honor and ethics which mankind has previously tried to use as a basis for harmonious human relations.
    History is demonstrating that because of his mental conditioning, Homo-Marxian is probably the most insecure of all men in his feelings. Since he believes himself to be an accidental phenomenon in a purposeless universe, he has an insatiable appetite to bring all things under his total domination. He admits that until this is done he cannot feel secure. Not only must he conquer the human race, but he has assigned himself the task of conquering matter, conquering space, and conquering all the forces of cosmic reality so as to bring order out of natural chaos. He must do this, he says, because man is the only creature in existence which has the accidental but highly fortunate capacity to do intelligent, creative thinking. He believes that since Homo-Marxian is the most advanced type of man, he must accept the responsibilities of a supreme being. He is perfectly sincere in his announcement that Homo-Marxian proposes to become the ultimate governor and god of the earth and then of the universe.
    Under the impact of such sweeping theoretical ambitions, many non-Marxists have been caught in the emotional tide of this ideological fantasia and have allowed themselves to be carried along in the current toward the shores of what they hoped would be a promised land of man-made godliness. However, in recent years a growing number of these pilgrims have risked life itself to come back to reality. Each one returns with the same story. Homo-Marxian was found to behave exactly like the graduate creature from the jungle which he believes himself to be. He regards all others with fearful suspicion and responds to each problem as though his very existence were at stake. Although he demands the right to rule humanity, he disdainfully rejects the most basic lessons learned during thousands of years of human experience. Returning pilgrims bear one witness: Homo-Marxian has reversed the direction of history. He has turned man against himself.
    It is in this historical crisis that man finds himself today. Marxist Man could not have come upon the earth at a more illogical time. In an age when technological advances have finally made it feasible to adequately feed, clothe and house the entire human race, Marxist Man stands as a military threat to this peaceful achievement. His sense of insecurity drives him to demand exclusive control of human affairs in a day when nearly all other peoples would like to create a genuine United Nations dedicated to world peace and world-wide prosperity. Although man can travel faster than sound and potentially provide frequent, intimate contacts between all cultures and all peoples, Marxist Man insists on creating iron barriers behind which he can secretly work.
    Marxist Man makes no secret of his ultimate objectives. He is out to rule the world. Because Homo-Marxian is still an adolescent he knows he cannot devour the whole human race in one greedy gulp. Therefore, he must be satisfied with one chunk at a time. As we shall see later, he has adopted an orderly “time-table of conquest” which he is following with a deadly fixation. According to Communist prophecy, time is running out on the free world.
    This dilemma leaves the unconquered portion of frightened humanity with only three possible courses of future action:
    1. They can meekly capitulate.
    2. They can try to co-exist.
    3. They can set about to pull the blustering bully down.
    As far as this writer is concerned there is absolutely no question whatever as to the course of action free men must ultimately take. In fact, it is the only choice the law of survival allows. Surely no man who has felt the throbbing pound of freedom in his veins could countenance capitulation as a solution. And no man who knows what lies behind the lethal Communist program of “co-existence” would dare accept that proposal as a long range solution.
    What then remains?
    Several years ago while serving with the FBI this writer became aware that the experts on Marxism have known for a long time that there are definite ways to stop Communism cold. Furthermore, if free men move in time, this can be done without a major war! That is why this book was written. It was written under the persuasion that modern men would be foolish indeed if they accepted the phenomenon of Homo-Marxian as a permanent fixture in the earth.
    There are well established and easily understood historical reasons why every legitimate influence should be brought to bear on the removal of this roadblock from the pathway of normal human advancement. This must be done for the sake of Homo-Marxian as well as for the rest of humanity. He is the victim of a man-made experiment, trapped in his own self-perpetuating cycle of human negation. As long as free men are the prevailing majority in the earth there is a very good chance of breaking this cycle. To do so, however, free men must achieve an intelligent and dynamic solidarity at least as strong as the illusory but firmly fixed purposes of Homo-Marxian.
    At the conclusion of this study there are listed a number of policies which, if used in time, could remove the roadblock that Marxist Man has thrown across the pathway of the race. These policies are solutions which automatically spring out of an understanding of the history, philosophy and ultimate objectives of Marxism. They are also the cold hard facts which have grown out of our bitter experiences in attempting to deal with Marxist Man.
    If enough people will study the problem and move across the world in one vast united front it is entirely possible that the race can celebrate the close of the Twentieth Century with this monumental achievement:
Freedom in our time for all men!

The Founders of Communism

    In this chapter we shall try to become acquainted with two men. The first is Karl Marx, the originator of Communism, and the second is Friedrich Engels, his collaborator. We shall try to present their lives the way the Communists present them—not as the soft, visionary social reformers which so many text books seem anxious to describe, but rather as the two-fisted, power hungry revolutionists which their closest followers found them to be. Although presented in brief summary, this chapter attempts to include sufficient details so that the student of Communism can answer these questions:
    • Why do Marxist writers call their founder a “genius” yet frankly admit he was “a violent, quarrelsome, contentious man, a dictator and a swashbuckler”?
    • Was Marx well educated? What was his nationality? Where did he do most of his revolutionary writing?
    • How was it that Marx never acquired a profession, an office, an occupation or a dependable means of livelihood?
    • How did Engels differ from Marx?
    • What were the six principal goals which Marx and Engels set forth in the Communist Manifesto?
    • Why did Marx believe one of his first tasks was to “de-throne God”? Why did he think his book, Capital, would change the world?
    • Why did Marx fail in his two attempts to create organizations for the promotion of world revolution?

London, 1853

    On a chilly, foggy day in 1853, a British government official stood in the drizzling rain before the doorway of a human hovel in the heart of London’s slums. He knocked and after a short delay was admitted. As the officer entered the room thick clouds of smoke and tobacco fumes billowed about his head causing him to choke and cough while his eyes watered. Through the haze he saw the proprietor of the slum dwelling, a barrel-chested man with disheveled hair and a bushy beard. The man greeted the officer in a strong German accent, offered him a clay pipe and then motioned him toward a broken-backed chair.
    If the officer had not known better he would never have guessed that the bushy-bearded man who sat before him was a graduate of a university with a Ph.D. degree. Nor that the wife who had just hustled the children into a back room was the daughter of a German aristocrat. Yet such was the case. This was the residence of Dr. and Mrs. Karl Marx.
    At the moment Karl Marx was a political fugitive—having been driven from Germany, France and Belgium. England had granted him domicile along with other revolutionary leaders from the Continent and for this Marx was grateful. It gave him a lifelong base from which to continue his revolutionary work.
    On this particular day the presence of the officer was no cause for alarm. It was the routine check which the British Government made on all political exiles living in England. Nor was the officer hostile. He found the Marxes strange but interesting people who could engage in very lively conversation on world problems while sitting blissfully in a domestic environment of incomprehensible confusion. The officer later included his puzzled observations concerning the Marxes in his official report:
    “(Marx) lives in one of the worst, therefore one of the cheapest, neighborhoods in London. He occupies two rooms. The room looking out on the street is the parlor, and the bedroom is at the back. There is not one clean or decent piece of furniture in either room, but everything is broken, tattered and torn, with thick dust over everything and the greatest untidiness everywhere. In the middle of the parlor there is a large old-fashioned table covered with oilcloth. On it there are manuscripts, books and newspapers, as well as the children’s toys, odds and ends and his wife’s sewing basket, cups with broken rims, dirty spoons, knives and forks, lamps, an ink-pot, tumblers, some Dutch clay-pipes, tobacco ashes—all in a pile on the same table…. But all these things do not in the least embarrass Marx or his wife. You are received in the most friendly way and cordially offered pipes, tobacco and whatever else there may happen to be. Eventually a clever and interesting conversation arises which makes amends for all the domestic deficiencies.”{1}
    Thus we are introduced to one of the most dramatic personalities to cross the pages of history during the nineteenth century. And one who would have a greater impact dead than alive. Biographers would grapple with the enigma of Marx’s life. At one moment Marx would be called “the greatest genius of this age,” and a moment later even his disciples would feel forced to call him “a violent, quarrelsome, contentious man, a dictator and a swashbuckler, one at feud with all the world and continually alarmed lest he should be unable to assert his superiority.”{2}
    Such were the contradictory, surging forces of human dynamics which found expression in the turbulent personality of Karl Marx.
Karl Marx: “If we can but weld our souls together, then with contempt shall I fling my glove in the world’s face, then shall I stride through the wreckage a creator.”

The Early Life of Karl Marx

    Karl Marx first saw the light of day at Treves, Germany, May 5, 1818. He certainly had no need to apologize for his progenitors. For many generations his male ancestors on both sides had been outstanding scholars and distinguished rabbis. However, the father of Karl Marx decided to break the ties of the past both religiously and professionally. He withdrew his family from the local synagogue to join the congregation of a local protestant faith and then reached out after professional recognition as a practicing attorney. Karl Marx was six years of age when the traditional moorings of the family were thus uprooted, and some biographers of Marx attribute his rejection of religion in later years to the conflicts which this sudden change in his life precipitated.
    In elementary school young Karl revealed himself to be a quick, bright scholar. He also revealed a quality which would plague him the rest of his life—his inability to keep a friend. Seldom, in all of Marx’s writings, do we find a reference to any happy boyhood associations. Biographers say he was too intense, too anxious to dominate the situation, too concerned about personal success, too belligerent in his self-assertiveness, to keep many friends. However, Karl Marx was not lacking in sentiment and genuine hunger for affection. At 17, when he began his university career, the letters which he wrote to his parents occasionally unveiled deeply sentimental, woman-like feelings. Here is an example:
    “In the hope that the clouds which hang over our family will gradually disperse; that I shall be permitted to share your sufferings and mingle my tears with yours, and, perhaps, in direct touch with you, to show the profound affection, the immeasurable love, which I have not always been able to express as I should like; in the hope that you, too, my fondly and eternally loved Father, bearing in mind how much my feelings have been storm-tossed, will forgive me because my heart must often have seemed to you to have gone astray when the travail of my spirit was depriving it of the power of utterance; in the hope that you will soon be fully restored to health, that I shall be able to clasp you in my arms, and to tell you all that I feel, I remain always your loving son, Karl.”
    Such expressions must have puzzled the elder Marx. Throughout his career as a father he was never able to counsel or cross this hot-tempered son without precipitating an emotional explosion. The letters of Karl Marx make frequent reference to the violent quarrels between himself and his parents; the letters from Karl’s parents complain of his egoism, his lack of consideration for the family, his constant demands for money and his discourtesy in failing to answer most of their letters.

Marx as a Young Man

    It was in the fall of 1835 that Marx entered the University of Bonn to study law. This was a hectic year. He scandalized his parents by joining a tavern club, running himself deeply in debt and almost getting himself expelled for “nocturnal drunkenness and riot.” His studies were most unsatisfactory and he threatened to become a professional poet instead of a lawyer. In the summer of 1836 he fought a duel and received a wound over the eye. It was finally decided that it would be better for the University of Bonn if Karl Marx transferred to some other university. The elder Marx heartily agreed. Karl was sent to Berlin.
    It was at the University of Berlin that the intellectual forces in Karl Marx became sinews and the whole pattern of his life began to take shape. Although he complied with his father’s wishes and studied law, it was a half-hearted camouflage to cover up his avid exploration of philosophy. In the midst of this exploration his father died and Marx immediately came out in the open with his announcement that he would seek an academic career. He wanted to occupy a chair of philosophy at some university. Marx chose for his doctoral dissertation: “The Difference between the Natural Philosophy of Democritus and of Epicurus.”
    In this study he favored the materialism of Epicurus because it allowed for an energizing principle in matter. He thought that if matter were auto-dynamic it would do away with the need for a Creator, a designer or a governing force in the universe. The anti-religious sentiments of Marx found further expression in his thesis when he chose for its motto the cry of Prometheus: “In one word—I hate all the gods!” During this period of intellectual incubation three things dominated the thinking of Karl Marx: his desire to discover a philosophy of nature; his desire to completely repudiate all forms of religion; his desire to win the hand of the daughter of Baron von Westphalen.
    While Marx was at the University of Berlin he fell in with a left-wing school of Hegelians who were followers of the German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Hegel. At the moment their whole energy was consumed by a desire to liquidate Christianity. David Friedrich Strauss had published his Life of Jesus in 1835 and shocked all Germany with his contention that the Gospels were not true historical documents but were merely myths which he believed evolved from the communal imagination of early Christians. A close associate of Marx, Bruno Bauer, wrote on the same theme in 1840 under the title, Historical Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels. In this book he claimed the Gospels were forgeries. He said Jesus had never existed, that he was a figure of fiction and therefore Christianity was a fraud.
    At this point Bauer and Marx decided they would boldly publish a Journal of Atheism, but the magazine lacked financial sponsorship and died in gestation.
    Nevertheless, the anti-Christian campaign gained another eloquent protagonist named Ludwig Feuerbach who came out in 1841 with his Essence of Christianity. He not only ridiculed Christianity but presented the thesis that man is the highest form of intelligence in the entire universe. This exotic flash of speculation fascinated Marx. He had written the same idea into his thesis for a doctorate. Marx had bluntly said it is necessary “to recognize as the highest divinity, the human self-consciousness itself!”
    The government’s reaction to this anti-Christian campaign took a serious turn; therefore Marx decided it would not be prudent to present his thesis to the University of Berlin where he had been studying. His friend, Bruno Bauer, suggested that he go to the University of Jena. Marx followed this suggestion and consequently received his degree of Doctor of Philosophy from that institution in April, 1841.
    Shortly afterwards, however, a leveling blow wiped out his passionate ambition to become a professor of philosophy at some German university. This resulted from the fact that Marx collaborated with Bauer in writing a pamphlet which was vigorously investigated because of its revolutionary flavor. When the Prussian officials identified the authors, Bauer was summarily dismissed from the University of Bonn and Marx was assured that he would never be allowed to teach at any university in Germany.
    In June, 1843, the wedding took place. At the time the bridegroom was unemployed and Jenny von Westphalen soon discovered that this was to be a permanent characteristic of their entire married life. Karl Marx never acquired the slightest comprehension of the responsibilities which a husband assumes as the head of a family. Nevertheless, Jenny von Westphalen remained loyal and devoted to Karl Marx under circumstances which would have crushed a woman of weaker mettle. After the marriage they had a five month honeymoon following which they went to Paris, where Marx hoped to collaborate in publishing a revolutionary organ called The Franco-German Year Books. The publication collapsed after its first issue and Marx spent the next fifteen months in the pleasant task of “studying and writing.”
    This was to be the pattern of his whole life. In later years while his family was starving he could be found at the library devoting himself to the interesting but, for him, completely unremunerative study of higher mathematics. Voltaire referred derisively to the breed of men who cannot run their own families and therefore retreat to their attics so that from there they can run the whole world. Marx seemed to fit this pattern. Although he seemed physically indolent, Marx was actually capable of prodigious quantities of intellectual work if it dealt with a subject which interested him. Otherwise, he would not stir. As a result of these personal characteristics, Marx never did acquire a profession, an office, a regular occupation or a dependable means of livelihood. Concerning this phase of his career a friendly biographer states:
    “Regular work bored him; conventional occupation put him out of humor. Without a penny in his pocket, and with his shirt pawned, he surveyed the world with a lordly air…. Throughout his life he was hard up. He was ridiculously ineffectual in his endeavors to cope with the economic needs of his household and family; and his incapacity in monetary matters involved him in an endless series of struggles and catastrophes. He was always in debt; was incessantly being dunned by creditors…. Half his household goods were always at the pawnshop. His budget defied all attempts to set it in order. His bankruptcy was chronic. The thousands upon thousands which Engels handed over to him melted away in his fingers like snow.”{4}
    This brings us to the only close friend Karl Marx ever had—Friedrich Engels.
Friedrich Engels, Marx’s collaborator in the development of Communist theory: “We say: ‘A la guerre comme a la guerre’; we do not promise any freedom, nor any democracy.”

Friedrich Engels

    In many ways Engels was the very opposite of Karl Marx. He was tall, slender, vivacious and good natured. He enjoyed athletics, liked people and was by nature an optimist. He was born in Barmen, Germany, November 28, 1820, the son of a textile manufacturer who owned large factories both in Barmen, Germany, and in Manchester, England. From his earliest youth Engels chafed under the iron discipline of his father, and he learned to despise the textile factories and all they represented. As he matured it was natural that he should have lined himself up with the “industrial proletariat.”
    For the son of a bourgeois businessman, young Engels had a surprisingly limited education; at least it did not include any extensive university training. But what he lacked in formal training he supplied through hard work and native talent. He spent considerable time in England and learned both English and French with such facility that he succeeded in selling articles to liberal magazines of both languages.
    Biographers have emphasized that while the hearty and attractive Engels differed in personal traits from the brooding, suspicious Marx, nevertheless, the two of them followed an identical course of intellectual development. Engels, like Marx, quarreled bitterly with his father, took to reading Strauss’s Life of Jesus, fell in with the same radical left-wing Hegelians who had attracted Marx, became an agnostic and a cynic, lost confidence in the free-enterprise economy of the Industrial Revolution and decided the only real hope for the world was Communism.
    Engels had been an admirer of Marx long before he had a chance to meet him. It was in August, 1844, that he traveled to Paris for the specific purpose of visiting Marx. The magnetic attraction between the two men was instantaneous. After ten days both men felt it was their destiny to work together. It was during this same ten days that Marx converted Engels from a Utopian Communist to an outright revolutionist. He convinced Engels that there was no real hope for humanity in the idealism of Robert Owen or Saint-Simon but that conditions called for a militant revolution to overthrow existing society. Engels agreed and proceeded back to Germany.
    Six months later Marx was expelled from France, along with other revolutionary spirits, and took up residence in Brussels, Belgium. Here Marx and Engels wrote The Holy Family, a book designed to rally around them those Communists who were willing to completely disavow any connection with the so-called “peaceful reforms” of philanthropy, Utopianism or Christian morality. The red flag of revolution was up and Marx and Engels considered themselves the royal color-guard.
    The strange relationship which rapidly developed between Marx and Engels can be understood only when it is realized that Engels considered it a privilege to be associated with such a genius as Marx. Among other things, he counted it an honor to be allowed to assume responsibility for Marx’s financial support. Shortly after Marx was expelled from France, Engels sent him all the ready cash in his possession and promised him more: “Please take it as a matter of course that it will be the greatest pleasure in the world to place at your disposal the fee I hope shortly to receive for my English literary venture. I can get along without any money just now, for my governor (father) will have to keep me in funds. We cannot allow the dogs to enjoy having involved you in pecuniary embarrassment by their infamous behavior.”
    This new partnership between Marx and Engels gave them both the courage to immediately launch an International Communist League based on the need for a violent revolution. They planned to use the workers in Germany and France as the backbone for their new political machine but this proved bitterly disappointing. After spending several months among the French workers Engels castigated them because they “prefer the most preposterous day-dreaming, peaceful plans for inaugurating universal happiness.” He told Marx that the tinder for a revolution in France was nonexistent. Having thus failed in their plan to build their own revolutionary organization, Marx and Engels decided to take over one that was already in existence. In August, 1847, they succeeded in gaining control of the “Workers’ Educational Society” in Brussels. This immediately gave them prestige among reform organizations in Europe. It also gave them the first opportunity to extend their influence in England. At this point Marx and Engels would have been surprised to know that England rather than the Continent would become the headquarters for their revolutionary work.

The Communist Manifesto

    During November, 1847, word came from London that the “Federation of the Just” (later known as the Communist League) wanted Marx and Engels to participate in their second congress as representatives of the Communist organizations in Brussels. Marx and Engels not only attended the congress but practically took it over. By staying up most of the night laying their plans and by using shrewd strategy at each of the meetings, they succeeded in getting the congress to adopt all of their basic views. Marx and Engels were then commissioned to write a declaration of principles or a “Manifesto to the World.” They returned to Brussels and immediately set to work with Marx pouring into the text his passionate plea for a revolution. When they were through they had announced to mankind that the new program of International Communism stood for: 1. the overthrow of capitalism, 2. the abolition of private property, 3. the elimination of the family as a social unit, 4. the abolition of all classes, 5. the overthrow of all governments, and 6. the establishment of a communist order with communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society. To accomplish this, the Communist Manifesto was crystal clear as to the course to be taken:
    “In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!”

The Revolution of 1848

    The red glare of revolution came much sooner than either Marx or Engels had anticipated. In February, 1848, while the ink on the Communist Manifesto was still drying, the revolutionary spirit of the French proletariat united with the resentment of the bourgeoisie against Louis Philippe and a violent uprising ensued which drove the Emperor from the country. Immediately afterwards a provisional government was set up which included members of the Communist League, who promptly summoned Marx to Paris. Marx was flushed with excitement when he arrived at the French capitol armed with full authority from the Communist League headquarters to set up the international headquarters in Paris and to engineer the revolutions in other countries from there.
    Marx learned that the intoxicating success of the uprising in France had induced the radical element in the provisional government to send “legions” into surrounding countries. Their purpose was to launch an uprising in each country and build the revolution into one magnificent conflagration. Although this was precisely what Marx had been advocating for several years, he suddenly sensed that such a campaign at the present moment might backfire and cause them to lose the support of the masses in those countries where legions were sent. Nevertheless, the plan was adopted and the first legions were marched off to Germany. Marx soon followed and began publishing a revolutionary periodical in his native tongue called the Rheinische Zeitung.
    The revolutionary leaders soon discovered that Marx was a propaganda liability. This became painfully evident when he was sent with other members of the Communist League to organize the workers in the Rhine Valley. Marx, when asked to address the German Democratic Congress, badly bungled this golden opportunity. Carl Schurz says: “I was eager to hear the words of wisdom that would, I supposed, fall from the lips of so celebrated a man. I was greatly disappointed. What Marx said was unquestionably weighty, logical and clear. But never have I seen any one whose manner was more insufferably arrogant. He would not give me a moment’s consideration to any opinion that differed from his own. He treated with open contempt everyone who contradicted him…. Those whose feelings he had wounded by his offensive manner were inclined to vote in favor of everything which ran counter to his wishes… far from winning new adherents, he repelled many who might have been inclined to support him.”{5}
    From the beginning the revolution in Germany had been anemic and by May 16, 1849, it had reached a state of inglorious collapse. Marx was given twenty-four hours to quit the country. He stayed just long enough to borrow funds and print the last edition of his paper in red ink and then hastened away to find refuge in France.
    But France was no refuge. Marx arrived in Paris penniless and exhausted, only to find that the Communist influence in the new Republic had wilted and died. The National Assembly was in the hands of a monarchial majority.
    As soon as possible he fled from France, leaving his family to follow later because he was destitute of funds. He decided to make his permanent exile in London.

The End of the Communist League

    Although Marx had to cram his family into a cheap, one-room apartment in slums of London, he felt sufficiently satisfied with their well-being to immediately concentrate his attention once again on the task of reviving the fires of the revolution. In spite of this spirit of dedication, however, Marx’s effort to lead out did more harm than good. His agitating spirit always seemed to create splinters and quarrels in the ranks of his confederates and before long he had practically cut himself off from his former associates. The Central Committee was taken out from under his influence and transferred to Cologne. There it remained until 1852 when all Communist leaders in Germany were arrested and sentenced to heavy prison terms for revolutionary activity. Marx did everything in his power to save his estranged comrades. He gathered documents, recruited witnesses and proposed various legal arguments which he thought might help, but in spite of all this yeoman service the verdicts of “guilty” pulled out of active revolutionary service every one of the party leaders then on trial. This sounded the death knell for the Communist League.

The Family of Karl Marx

    From this time on the Marx family lived in London in the most extreme poverty. A peculiar combination of emotions was expressed by Marx in his correspondence during this period. On the one hand he expressed soulful concern for the welfare of his wife and children. He confessed in a letter to Engels that the “nocturnal tears and lamentations” of his wife were almost beyond endurance. Then, in the same letter he blithely went about explaining how he was spending his whole time studying history, politics, economics and social problems so as to figure out the answers for all the problems of the world.
    In 1852 his little daughter, Francisca, died. Two years later marked the passing of his young son, Edgar, and two years after that a baby died at birth.
    A few paragraphs from a letter written by Mrs. Marx indicates the amazing loyalty of this woman who saw her half-fed children dying around her while their father spent days and nights in the British Museum library.
    “Let me describe only one day of this life, as it actually was…. Since wet-nurses are exceedingly expensive here, I made up my mind, despite terrible pains in the breasts and the back, to nurse the baby myself. But the poor little angel drank in so much sorrow with the milk that he was continually fretting, in violent pain day and night. Since he has been in the world, he has not slept a single night through, at most two or three hours. Of late, there have been violent spasms, so that the child is continually betwixt life and death. When thus afflicted, he sucked so vigorously that my nipple became sore, and bled; often the blood streamed into his little mouth. One day I was sitting like this when our landlady suddenly appeared…. Since we could not pay this sum (of five pounds) instantly, two brokers came into the house, and took possession of all my belongings—bedding, clothes, everything, even the baby’s cradle and the little girls’ toys, so that the children wept bitterly. They threatened to take everything away in two hours. (Fortunately they did not.) If this had happened I should have had to lie on the floor with my freezing children beside me….
    Thus the years passed. Literally hundreds of letters were exchanged between Engels and Marx and nearly all of them refer in one place or another to money. Engels’ letters characteristically contain this phrase: “Enclosed is a post office order for five pounds,” while Marx’s epistles are shot through with exasperated passages such as: “My mother has positively assured me that she will protest any bill drawn on her.” “For ten days we have been without a soul in the house.” “You will agree that I am dipped up to my ears in petty-bourgeois pickle.”
    At one point in this bitter existence there seemed to be a sudden ray of hope. During a particularly desperate period when Engels could give no relief, Marx made a trip to Holland where a prosperous uncle generously handed him one hundred and sixty pounds. This was enough to put Marx on his financial feet, pay off his debts and give him a new start. But with money in his pocket, Marx decided to take a tour of Germany. He visited his mother in Treves, preceded to Berlin, undertook a number of drinking excursions with his old friends, had himself photographed and generally played the role of a gentleman of leisure. Two months later he returned home. Frau Marx welcomed her tourist husband thinking that now bills could be paid, clothing and furniture could be purchased and better rooms rented. She was horrified to learn that practically nothing remained of the hundred and sixty pounds.

The Founding of the First International

    In 1862 a great international exhibition was held in London, to proudly parade the industrial achievements of nineteenth century capitalism. The promoters of the exhibition were desirous of creating an atmosphere of international good will and therefore invited all countries to not only submit displays but also to send representatives of their workers to exchange ideas and good will with the workers of other countries who would be in attendance.
    The British labor leaders, who had been gaining strength since 1860, considered this an excellent time to set up an international workers’ organization. They therefore took, every opportunity to make firm friends with labor leaders from Italy, Germany, France, Poland and Holland. In due time they were able to establish a permanent “International” with headquarters in London. One of the leaders of this movement was a tailor named Eccarius who had formerly been a right hand man to Marx during the days of the Communist League. As soon as the new movement began to catch on, Marx was invited by Eccarius to participate.
    Immediately Marx began to assert himself—but within bounds. This was the lesson he had partially learned from the failure of the Communist League. The new organization was called the International Workingmen’s Association and is frequently referred to as the First International. As long as Marx restrained himself he was able to exercise considerable influence among the labor leaders from the various countries. By careful maneuvering behind the scenes he was able to get nearly all of his ideas adopted in preference to weaker, more peaceful programs suggested by “social-minded reformers.” But all of this seemed mealy-mouthed and unnatural to Marx. He admitted to Engels he had been forced to make compromises in order to keep peace:
    In spite of this determination to be “moderate,” however, it was not long before the true feeling of Marx rumbled to the surface. He was concerned about two things: first, the need to create a hard core of disciplined revolutionists who could inflame the workers of the major industries in all countries with a will to act, and secondly, the need to eliminate any who might threaten Marx’s leadership in this new movement. What Marx was contemplating was a party purge.
    The first to feel the force of the new campaign was the German labor leader, Herr von Schweitzer. All students of Marx and Engels seem to agree that both of them were completely without mercy when it came to dealing with a comrade who was marked for party liquidation. The broadside of propaganda which they launched against Schweitzer alleged that he was working for Bismarck, the Iron Man of Germany. Although this was pure fabrication, nothing would have been more devastating to Schweitzer’s reputation. Even today some historians use Marx’s charges as a basis for the claim that Schweitzer was a traitor to the cause of labor.
    Another party pillar to fall under the purge was Mikhail Bakunin, the first Russian to become interested in revolutionary activities. He escaped from a Russian prison and had taken up residence in Geneva. Bakunin became so enthusiastic in advocating Marx’s principles that certain elements of the labor movement began gravitating toward his leadership. This was fatal. Marx immediately set out to destroy him. The technique was the same as that used against Schweitzer except that Marx and Engels charged Bakunin with being an agent of the Russian Czar. This had a ruinous effect for awhile. Then they spread a charge which later proved to be completely false—that Bakunin had embezzled 25,000 francs. Finally, to administer the coup de grace, Marx succeeded in getting the International to oust Bakunin from the Association. By this act Marx secretly felt he had destroyed the last man who might seriously threaten his leadership. What Marx did not know was the fact that in spite of this abuse, Bakunin would remain loyal to Marx’s precepts, even translate Marx’s books into Russian and thereby plant seeds which would ultimately bring the first nation in the modern world under a Communist dictatorship.
    However, Mark’s anxiety to purge the International of all his personal enemies created such violent suspicion, distrust and party dissension that it brought about the organization’s total destruction. In fact, the end of the First International came close on the heels of Bakunin’s expulsion. The trade unions in England began to abandon the cause of international revolution and the workers’ groups on the Continent began ignoring the mandates of the Association. Finally, on September 8, 1873, the last congress of the International Workingmen’s Association was held at Geneva and Marx found that the thirteen delegates who finally agreed to attend had to be practically “dug up out of the ground.” For all practical intents and purpose, the First International was dead.

Marx Writes a Book to Change the World

    Much of Marx’s motivation in trying to make the International Workingmen’s Association a great world movement was his desire to put into practice the very theories he was struggling to put down on paper. For several years he had pampered his two pet projects—the International and his “book.” Both projects drained him of his normal physical strength. This permitted an old liver ailment to flare up again and before long he was suffering from a rash of boils which threatened to cover his entire body. Ill health was to plague him the remainder of his days. In a letter to Engels he poured out his complaints against the pain and disappointment he was suffering:
    “To my extreme disgust, after being unable to sleep all night I discovered two more first-class boils on my chest.” Later he wrote, “I am working now like a drayhorse, seeing that I must make the best use of all the time available for work, and the carbuncles are still there, though they are now giving me only local trouble, and are not interfering with my brain.” After a particularly severe attack he wrote: “This time it was really serious—the family did not know how serious. If it recurs three or four times more, it will be all up with me. I have wasted amazingly, and am still damnably weak, not in the head, but in the trunk and limbs…. There is no question of being able to sit up, but, while lying, I have been able, at intervals, to keep digging away at my work.”{8}
    The “work” to which Marx refers was the research and preparation of the first volume of Capital. Marx was convinced that a revolution would never succeed unless the working masses had a revolutionary philosophy of history, economics and social progress. He wrote Capital in order to show why the violent overthrow of the present order was not only justified but inescapable. Elsewhere, we shall examine the theories of Marx, but at this point it is sufficient to point out that Marx looked upon the writing of this book as an unpleasant mission which had to be completed before international communism could germinate and flourish.
    During 1865, when Marx was striving to prepare a final copy of his first volume for the printer, he told Engels he wanted to “finish it off quickly, for the thing has become a perfect nightmare to me.” He occasionally enjoyed periods of respite from his illness and finally wrote to Engels: “As regards the damned book, this is how the matter stands. It was finished in the end of December.” Engels assured Marx that the pain and suspense of getting the book completed were as great a trial to him as they were to Marx. He wrote: “The day the manuscript goes to press, I shall get gloriously drunk!”
    It was not until March, 1867, that all the revisions were finally completed and Marx set out for Germany to have the book published in his native tongue. In a short time it began to be distributed.
    But when Capital appeared in the book stalls it was far from the literary triumph which Marx and Engels had both expected. Its line of reasoning was entirely too finely drawn for the working masses and far from persuasive among intellectual reformers. It remained for the intellectuals of another generation to make Capital the principal excuse for their attack on the existing order of things.

The Closing Years

    By 1875 Marx had little satisfaction to draw from his life of struggle. The International had disintegrated around him and the book which was written to justify his policies was gathering dust in the bookstores across the Continent. Marx continued writing two more volumes but the flame was going out in him. After Marx’s death, it would remain the task of Engels to publish the second volume in 1885 and the third volume in 1894.
    The closing years for Karl Marx were sterile, lonely ones. In abject defeat he turned to the bosom of his family. Always there would be Jenny to give comfort and consolation. But the Marx children bore the scars of their upbringing. When Marx interfered with the courtship of his daughter, Eleanor, she entered a free-love union with Edward Aveling and, following a most wretched existence with him, committed suicide. Another daughter, Laura, married a renegade doctor and later died with him in a suicide pact.
    By 1878 Marx had abandoned practically every aspect of his work. His rock-ribbed self confidence had been shattered. Labor leaders ignored him, reformers ridiculed him. His words carried little weight, either at home or abroad.
    Thus, his morale was at the breaking point when the toll of time struck down his only kindred spirit outside of Engels—Frau Marx. This gentle, aristocratic and long-suffering companion died of cancer December 2, 1881. Thirteen months later, Marx’s favorite daughter, Jenny, also suddenly died. Thereafter, Engels noted that Marx, the man, was as well as dead. He survived his daughter, Jenny, by only two brief months. On March 14, 1883, at 2:45 in the afternoon, he died while sitting alone in his chair.
    Three days later six or seven persons followed the casket of Karl Marx to Highgate cemetery in London and there his one abiding friend, Friedrich Engels, read a funeral oration. It was the kind of oration Marx would liked to have heard. It granted him in death what Marx was never granted in life unequivocal tribute of glowing praise.


    Thus ended the dynamic, turbulent and restless career of Karl Marx. By all standards it was a pathetic life, filled with burning ambition, constant frustration and continuous failure. Whether seen from the viewpoint of friend or foe, perhaps the real tragedy of Marx’s life can be found in the fact that for some amazing reason he almost instinctively planted the seeds of self-destruction in any project he promoted.
    One cannot pore over the almost endless products of his pen—the weighty, complex books or the reams of sniping, feverish correspondence without feeling that Karl Marx projected into Communism the very essence of his own nature. His resentment of political authority expressed itself in a ringing cry for universal revolution. His refusal or inability to compete in a capitalistic economy wrung from him a vitriolic denunciation of that economy and a prophecy that its destruction was inexorably decreed. His deep sense of insecurity pushed him to create out of his own imagination a device for interpreting history which made progress inescapable and a Communist millennium unavoidable. His personal attitude toward religion, morals and competition in everyday existence led him to long for an age when men would have no religion, morals or competition in everyday existence. He wanted to live in a classless, stateless, noncompetitive society where there would be such lavish production of everything that men, by simply producing according to their apparent ability, would automatically receive a superabundance of all material needs.
    Another characteristic of Marx which he shared with his intellectual off-spring—Communism—is that both must be viewed from a distance to be admired, even by friends. It is for this reason that biographers often treat Marx as though he were two persons. From a distance they might feel to admire his theories but upon close contact Marx becomes a different entity. Thus, Bakunin could call Marx the “supreme economic and socialist genius of our day” and then give the following evaluation of Marx, the man: “Marx is egotistical to the pitch of insanity….
    “Marx loved his own person much more than he loved his friends and apostles, and no friendship could hold water against the slightest wound to his vanity…. Marx will never forgive a slight to his person. You must worship him, make an idol of him, if he is to love you in return; you must at least fear him if he is to tolerate you. He likes to surround himself with pygmies, with lackeys and flatterers. All the same, there are some remarkable men among his intimates. In general, however, one may say that in the circle of Marx’s intimates there is very little brotherly frankness, but a great deal of machination and diplomacy. There is a sort of tacit struggle and a compromise between the self-loves of the various persons concerned; and where vanity is at work there is no longer place for brotherly feeling. Every one is on his guard, is afraid of being sacrificed, of being annihilated. Marx’s circle is a sort of mutual admiration society. Marx is the chief distributor of honours, but is also the invariably perfidious and malicious, the never frank and open, inciter to the persecution of those whom he suspects, or who had the misfortune of failing to show all the veneration he expects. As soon as he has ordered a persecution there is no limit to the baseness and infamy of the method.”
    The acid of boiling intolerance which Marx frequently poured down on the heads of his followers may be partially explained by his own complete certainty that the theories he had concocted were infallible gems of cosmic truth. In his heyday of abounding strength Marx often bowled over his opposition with mountain-moving declarations of supreme self-confidence:
    “Historical evolution is on your side,” he shouted to his followers. “Capitalism, brought into being by the laws of historical evolution, will be destroyed by the inexorable working of these same laws. The bourgeoisie, the business manager of the capitalist system, appeared on the stage of history with that system, and must make its exit when that system walks off the stage. You, proletarians, keep capitalism going by your labour, and maintain the whole of bourgeois society by the fruits of your industry. But socialism will be a necessary organic outcome of capitalism, the essence of the latter being implied in the essence of the former. With the end of capitalism, comes the beginning of socialism as a logical consequence. You proletarians, as a class, being the incorporators of the forces and tendencies which will do away with capitalism, must necessarily make an end of the bourgeoisie. You merely need, as a class, to fulfill the evolution which your mission calls on you to fulfill. All you need is to will! History makes this as easy as possible for you. You need not hatch out any new ideas, make any plans, discover a future State. You need not ‘dogmatically anticipate the world.’ You need merely put your hands to the task which is awaiting you. The means by which you will do it are to be found in the unceasing, purposive, consistent fighting of the class struggle, whose crown will be the victory of the social revolution.”
    When Marx died there was little to suggest to him in his closing hours that he yet would be remembered for the thing he had striven unsuccessfully to produce—a genuine revolution. While Western Europe wrote off revolutionary violence as a mere phase of Nineteenth Century social reform, a great slumbering giant in Eastern Europe was about to be rudely awakened by Marx’s revolutionary call to arms. This, of course, was Russia.
    Before studying the revolution in Russia, we must turn to a brief review of the theories which Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels left as a legacy to the disciples of World Communism. In these theories may be found the explanation for many things in the Russian Revolution and in subsequent Communist activities which otherwise might be difficult or impossible to understand.

The Appeal of Communism

    “How could a great scientist or anyone with so much education fall for Communism?” During the past 20 years this question has echoed around the land with each fresh exposure of Red espionage. It has been amazing to many people to discover that Communism appeals to certain educated individuals because it includes an intriguing “philosophy of nature.” In this philosophy Communism does seem to explain the origin and development of everything in existence—life, planets, galaxies, evolution, and even human intelligence. To those who have not previously delved into philosophy these concepts sometimes prove infatuating and persuasive. Therefore, in this chapter we shall deal with them.
    Perhaps this material may prove to be difficult reading. However, the theories of Communism will be far easier to digest in this brief, concentrated form than they would be if the student attempted to spend several months digging them out of far-flung, technical treatises in Communist literature.
    Every student should pursue his studies of Marxism until he has discovered the answers to such questions as these:
    • What is the Communist “law of opposites”? What is the “law of negation”? Explain the “law of transformation.
    • How does the Communist philosopher explain the origin of life? Does the universe have a designer or a purpose?
    • What is meant by the Communist concept that everything is the result of accumulated accident?
    • Does Communism have a god? What did Feuerbach say man’s god really is? Who did Marx say must remake the world? How did Marx and Engels justify the use of violence?
    • What is the basic fallacy in the Communist “law of opposites”? What is the inherent fallacy in the “law of negation”? What is the weakness in the “law of transformation”?

The Case for Communism

    The influence of Marx and Engels has continued in the earth, not simply because they were against so many things but primarily because they stood for something. In a word, they promised to satisfy humanity’s two greatest needs: the need for universal peace and the need for universal prosperity.
    The very fact that Communism offered a millennium for all the distracted, dissatisfied and unhappy people in the world assured it a hearing, not merely by under-privileged workers, but by many of the aristocracy, many of the wealthy, and many of the political and economic theorists.
    When these people began hearing how Marx and Engels were going to achieve universal peace and universal prosperity they began dividing into clear-cut camps for or against Communism. One group insisted that Communism was worth a try in spite of the blood bath it would bring to humanity (after all, what is one more war if it is the gateway to permanent peace?). The other camp insisted that Communism is a complete repudiation of every decent human attribute. It would summarily forfeit all the gains which men have made through centuries of struggle.
    What, then, is the case for Communism?
    In this chapter we shall attempt to reduce Communist thought to its basic formula. The student will become immediately aware that Marx and Engels dealt with much more than violent revolution and Communist economics. In fact, they developed a framework of ideas designed to explain everything in existence. This philosophy is the pride and joy of every modern Communist intellectual and therefore deserves careful scrutiny.

The Communist Philosophy of Nature

    Communist philosophy then sets forth to answer three questions:
    • What is the origin of energy or motion in nature?
    • What causes galaxies, solar systems, planets, animals and all kingdoms of nature to constantly increase their numerical quantity?
    • What is the origin of life, the origin of species and the origin of consciousness and mind?
    Marx and Engels answered all of these questions with their three laws of matter:
    The Law of Opposites—Marx and Engels started with the observation that everything in existence is a combination or unity of opposites.{10} Electricity is characterized by a positive and negative charge. Atoms consist of protons and electrons which are unified but contradictory forces. Each organic body has qualities of attraction and repulsion. Even human beings find through introspection that they are a unity of opposite qualities—selfishness and altruism, courage and cowardice, social traits and anti-social traits, humbleness and pride, masculinity and femininity. The Communist conclusion is that everything in existence “contains two mutually incompatible and exclusive but nevertheless equally essential and indispensable parts or aspects.”{11}
    Now the Communist concept is that this unity of opposites in nature is the thing which makes each entity auto-dynamic and provides the constant motivation for movement and change. This idea was borrowed from Georg Wilhelm Hegel (1770–1831) who said: “Contradiction (in nature) is the root of all motion and of all life.”{12}
    This, then, introduces us to the first basic observation of Communist dialectics. The word “dialectics” has a very special meaning to Communists. It represents the idea of conflict in nature. The beginning student of Communist philosophy can better understand the meaning of dialectics if he substitutes the word “conflict” each time “dialectics” appears.
    So at this point the student is expected to understand that each thing in the universe is in a state of motion because it is a parcel made up of opposite forces which are struggling within it. This brings us to the second law of matter.
    The Law of Negation—Having accounted for the origin of motion and energy in the universe, the Communist writers then set about to account for the tendency in nature to constantly increase the numerical quantity of all things. They decided that each entity tends to negate itself in order to reproduce itself in greater quantity. Engels cited the case of the barley seed which, in its natural state, germinates and out of its own death or negation produces a plant. The plant in turn grows to maturity and is itself negated after bearing many barley seeds. Thus, all nature is constantly expanding through dying. The elements of opposition which produce conflict in each thing and give it motion also tend to negate the thing itself; but out of this dynamic process of dying the energy is released to expand and produce many more entities of the same kind.{13}
    Having accounted for numerical increase in the universe, the Communist philosophers then set about to account for all the different creations in nature.
    The Law of Transformation—This law states that a continuous quantitative development by a particular class often results in a “leap” in nature whereby a completely new form or entity is produced.{14} Consider, for example, the case of the paraffin hydrocarbons:
    “Chemistry testifies to the fact that methane is composed of one atom of carbon and four atoms of hydrogen. Now, if we add to methane another atom of carbon and two more atoms of hydrogen (a mere quantitative increase since these are the elements already composing the methane) we get an entirely new chemical substance called ethane. If we add another atom of carbon and two more atoms of hydrogen to the ethane, we get propane, an entirely different chemical substance. Another quantitative addition of an atom of carbon and two atoms of hydrogen results in a fourth chemical substance, butane. And still another quantitative addition of an atom of carbon and two more atoms of hydrogen results in a fifth chemical substance, pentane.”{15}
    The Marxist philosophers immediately concluded that this is the clue to the “Creative Power” in nature. Matter is not only auto-dynamic and inclined to increase itself numerically, but through quantitative accumulations it is also inherently capable of “leaps” to new forms and new levels of reality.
    Marx and Engels now felt they had not only found an explanation for the “origin of species,” but that they had discovered a thrilling explanation for the greatest mystery of all: What is Life?

The Origin of Life, Consciousness and Mind

    Engels also suggested that as soon as life emerged spontaneously from albuminous substance, it was bound to increase in complexity. Dialectical Materialism is an evolutionary philosophy. However, the Communist does not believe that new forms in nature are the result of gradual change but that quantitative multiplication builds up the momentum for a “leap” in nature which produces a change or a new specie.
    The Communist believes that incidental to one of these leaps, the phenomenon of consciousness emerged. The creature became aware of the forces which were playing upon it. Then at an even higher level another form of life appeared with the emerging capacity to work with these impressions—to arrange them in associations—and thus mind emerged as an intelligent, self-knowing, self-determining quality in matter. However, matter is primary, mind is secondary. Where there is no matter there is no mind—therefore, there can be no soul, no immortality, no God.
    With the setting down of the Law of Transformation the Communist philosophy of nature became complete. The Dialectical Materialists felt that a great intellectual contribution had been made to man’s understanding of the universe. Through these laws they decided they had shown:
    1. Matter is a unity of opposites which creates a conflict that makes it auto-dynamic and self-energizing; therefore matter does not need an outside source of power for its manifestation of motion;
    2. Through its pattern of constant negation or dying, nature tends to multiply itself and fill the universe with an orderly development or increase without requiring any guiding intelligence; and
    3. Through the Law of Transformation matter is capable of producing new forms without the need of any creative or directing power outside of itself.
    Engels boasted that by discovery of these laws “the last vestige of a Creator external to the world is obliterated.”{17}
    From this brief summary, it will be seen that the Communist intellectual believes that everything in existence came about as a result of ceaseless motion among the forces of nature. Everything is a product of accumulated accident. There is no design. There is no law. There is no God. There is only matter and force in nature.
    As for man, the Communist philosopher teaches that he is a graduate animal—an accident of nature like all other forms of life. Nevertheless, man is supposed to have the accidental good fortune to possess the highest intelligence in existence. This is said to make him the real god of the universe. This is precisely what Ludwig Feuerbach had in mind when he said: “The turning point of history will be the moment man becomes aware that the only God of man is man himself.”
    This will account for the almost passionate zeal of Communist leaders to destroy all forms of religion and the worship of God. Nikolai Lenin declared: “We must combat religion—this is the ABC of materialism, and consequently of Marxism.” When Karl Marx was asked what his objective in life was, he said, “To dethrone God and destroy capitalism!” However, it is interesting to observe that having denounced God, the scriptures, morals, immortality, eternal judgment, the existence of the spirit and the sanctity of individual human life, the dialectical materialists turned to the worship of themselves.
    They decided that man is the epitome of perfection among nature’s achievements and therefore the center of the universe.
    But if man is supposed to have the highest intelligence in existence then it becomes his manifest duty to remake the world. Naturally, Marx believed this task was the inescapable responsibility of the Communist leaders since they are the only ones who have a truly scientific understanding of social and economic progress. Marx and Engels accepted the fact that the remaking of the world will have to be a cruel and ruthless task and that it will involve the destruction of all who stand in the way. This is necessary, they said, in order to permit the Communist leadership to wipe out the social and economic sins of human imperfection in one clean sweep and then gradually introduce a society of perfect harmony which will allow all humanity to live scientifically, securely and happily during all future ages.
    However, before striking out on such a bold course, the founders of Communism realized they would have to develop a whole new approach to morals and ethics for their followers. Lenin summarized it as follows: “We say that our morality is wholly subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.”{18} In other words, whatever tends to bring about the Communist concept of material betterment is morally good, and whatever does not is morally bad. This concept is simply intended to say that “the end justifies the means.” It is not wrong to cheat, lie, violate oaths or even destroy human life if it is for a good cause. This code of no morals accounts for the amoral behavior on the part of Communists which is frequently incomprehensible to non-Communists.

A Brief Critique of the Communist Philosophy of Nature

    From experience it has been observed that a newly converted Communist frequently acquires a feeling of omniscient superiority over his unconverted fellow men. He feels that at last the universe is laid out before him in a simple, comprehensible manner. If he has never wrestled with philosophical problems before he is likely to be overwhelmed by the infatuating possibility that through Dialectical Materialism man has finally solved all of the basic problems necessary to understand the universe. In this state of mind the student will often drop his attitude of critical inquiry. He will invite indoctrination in heavy doses because of his complete assurance that he has at last discovered Truth in its ultimate form.
    There are many things, however, which the alert student will immediately recognize as fallacies in the Communist philosophy of nature. Take, for example, the Law of Opposites. This law proclaims that all matter is a unity of opposites, and that out of the opposition manifested by these contradictory elements, energy is derived. This is supposed to explain the origin of motion. But two contradictory elements would never come together in the first place unless they already had energy in themselves. Contradictory forces in nature are found to have energy independent of each other. Bringing them together simply unifies energy or motion already in existence. Therefore, as philosophical scholars have pointed out, the Communist Law of Opposites does not explain motion; it presupposes it!{19}
    As one author facetiously put it: “Two inert elements could no more produce a conflict and create motion than a thousand dead Capitalists and a million dead Communists could produce a class war.”
    It will be recalled that the second law of matter according to the Communists is the Law of Negation. This is the principle that the contradictory forces in an entity tend toward its own negation but, through the process of dying, these forces of motion are released into an even more extended development. Thus, a barley seed germinates and is negated to produce a plant which, in turn, is negated to produce a quantity of new seeds. In this manner the numerical increase in nature is accounted for.
    But as Dr. McFadden points out in The Philosophy of Communism, the Law of Negation explains nothing. It merely describes a phenomenon in nature. True, the plan of nature is to reproduce itself in ever-expanding quantities, but the demise or negation of a parent is not necessarily related in any way to its power to reproduce itself. The growth and demise of any being goes forward whether it reproduces itself or not, and some beings reproduce over and over again before any negation takes place.
    Furthermore, the first and second laws of matter leave the Communist philosopher in the position of arguing that motion and life are not only auto-dynamic, self-creating and spontaneous but that the development of a barley seed into a plant and the reproduction of many barley seeds by the plant is the result of accumulated accident. Engels deplored the possibility of being left in this position and frankly agreed that there is “law, order, causality and necessity in nature.”{20} Nevertheless, he would not admit the possibility of intelligent design in nature but said the barley seed produces a plant and the plant produces more barley seeds because the nature of the thing demands it.{21} Why does the thing demand it? No matter how the point is obscured by philosophical terminology, the student will have little difficulty detecting that Engels is arguing that blind, uncomprehending forces of mechanical motion in nature are capable of ordering themselves to produce intricate things which are designed in advance to achieve a pre-determined end. What, for example, is there about a barley seed which would demand that it negate itself and produce a plant? And by what rule of reason can the Dialectical Materialist account for the fact that a germinated barley seed always produces a certain kind of plant and nothing else?
    The authorities point out that Engels developed a pattern of thought that led to conclusions which even he recognized could not be demonstrated in nature and therefore he retreated behind obscure generalities which the student finds nebulous and intangible.
    The third law—the Law of Transformation—also describes a phenomenon in nature but fails to account for it. It confirms that in nature we discover widely separated species with distinguishing qualities and characteristics. But while some of these “leaps” can be produced with certain inorganic substances simply by quantitative accumulation (as in the paraffin hydrocarbons) it does not explain how the new qualities are produced. Furthermore, when this same principle is used to explain life as spontaneously emerging in albuminous substances, the Communist philosopher is defiantly flying in the face of all scientific experience. The universal demonstration of nature is the fact that only life begets life. It has not been possible to produce life synthetically or spontaneously either in the laboratory or in nature.
    These basic weaknesses in Communist philosophy were the factors which ultimately convinced Whittaker Chambers (an American espionage agent for the Communists) that he had been deceived. In spite of the heavy terminology of Communist dialectics he finally became convinced that blind, uncomprehending material forces in nature could never produce—regardless of the time allowed—the highly complex things which man finds all around him.
    As students of the problem have often pointed out: “The odds against nature, of itself happening to produce an organ of such complexity as the eye, with its thousands of infinitesimal parts combined in exactly the manner required for vision, are mathematically almost incalculable. But the eye only one of the many complex parts of the human body. The chances against nature producing precisely that material organization found in each of the other organs and glands are equally great. But this is not all. For, in man, all of these organs and glands are organized into a perfect functional unit. And man is only one of the countless species of nature, inanimate and animate, each one of which possesses a similar marvelous organization of its most minute parts.”
    It was this kind of thinking which finally awakened Whittaker Chambers to the realization that the realities around him were much more complex and profound than the Communist explanation of “motion in matter” could begin to satisfy or account for. Thus, he began his retreat from the philosophy of Communism.
    The great tragedy of Communism, however, is the fact that its founders did not stop at the so-called “harmless speculation” of Dialectical Materialism. They determined to permeate every aspect of human existence with the principles which they felt they had discovered. Therefore, they promoted a new approach to history, economics, politics, ethics, social planning and even science. In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels admitted that critics of Communism could say that it “abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”{22}
    Because more than a third of the earth’s population is now being subjected to the terrifying “plan of action” which the Communist founders believed should be forced upon all mankind for their ultimate good, we will try to discover how Communism proposes to solve the world’s problems.

The Communist Approach to the Solution of World Problems

    Now we come to the part of Communism with which more people are familiar. At least, more people have heard about the Communist plan of action than the Communist philosophy of nature which we have just covered. Here are some questions that every student of Communism should be able to answer concerning the Marxist solution to world problems:
    • Why did Marx and Engels think they had discovered an inexorable law in history which made it possible for them to predict the course of future human development?
    • What is “Economic Determinism”? What is the “Activist Theory”? According to Marx and Engels is there any such thing as “free will”? Can men choose the kind of society in which they will live or are they victims of material forces which surround them?
    • How did Marx and Engels explain human progress as a product of class struggle?
    • What is the Communist theory of private property? Why is it considered a curse?
    • How did Marx and Engels account for the origin of the State? Why did they think it was “unnatural”?
    • How did they account for the origin of religion, morals and jurisprudence?
    • What was supposed to be accomplished during the Communist “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”?
    • Why do the Communists say “socialism” is only a temporary stage of human progress?
    • How did they propose to develop a civilization which would consist of a classless, stateless society?

The Communist Interpretation of History

    Today very few people have had occasion to sit down with a professional Communist and listen to his views. Should such an occasion arise the student would receive the immediate impression that a Communist has a reverential regard for the record of man’s past. This is because Marx and Engels thought their studies of the past had led them to discover an “inexorable law” which runs through all history like a bright red thread. They further believed that by tracing this thread it is possible to predict with positive assurance the pattern of man’s progress in the future.
    What did Marx and Engels discover during their study of history? First of all they decided that self-preservation is the supreme instinct in man and therefore his whole pattern of human conduct must have been governed by an attempt to wrest the necessities of life from nature. It is a dialectical process—man against nature. This led them to a monumental conclusion: all historical developments are the result of “Economic Determinism”—man’s effort to survive. They said that everything men do—whether it is organizing a government, establishing laws, supporting a particular moral code or practicing religion—is merely the result of his desire to protect whatever mode of production he is currently using to secure the necessities of life. Furthermore, they believed that if some revolutionary force changes the mode of production, the dominant class will immediately set about to create a different type of society designed to protect the new economic order.
    To appreciate their point of view, it is necessary to understand Marx and Engels’ mechanistic conception of the way the human mind works. They said that after the brain receives impressions from the outside world, it automatically moves the individual to take action (this is their Activist Theory). They did not believe knowledge could be acquired without motivating the owner to do something about it. For example, when men became aware that slavery was a satisfactory way to produce crops, construct buildings and enjoy various kinds of services, this knowledge moved the dominant class to create a society which protected the interest of the slave owners. And in modern times Marx and Engels believed that the bourgeois or property class have done the same thing by instinctively creating a society to protect their capitalistic interests. As they said to the bourgeois in the Communist Manifesto:
    “Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence (system of law) is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of existence of your class.”{24}
    From this it will be seen that Marx and Engels did not believe that men could arbitrarily choose any one of several forms of society but only that one which promotes the prevailing mode of production. The very nature of man’s materialistic make-up requires him to do this. “Are men free to choose this or that form of society? By no means.”{25} According to Marx the thing which we call “free will” is nothing more nor less than an awareness of the impelling forces which move an individual to action; in taking action he is not free to change the course his very nature dictates.
    “Communism has no idea of freedom as the possibility of choice, of turning to right or left, but only as the possibility of giving full play to one’s energy when one has chosen which way to turn.”{26}
    In other words, human minds receive knowledge of existing economic circumstances and “choose” to turn in the direction which is necessary to preserve the current mode of production. They are then free only in the sense that they are moved to decide that they will expend vast quantities of energy in building a superstructure of government, morals, laws and religion which will perpetuate these basic economic circumstances. At the foundation of all activities of society lies “Economic Determinism.” “The mode of production in material life determined the general character of the social, political and spiritual processes of life.”{27}
    Marx and Engels now felt they had discovered something much more vital to human welfare than simply a philosophical explanation of history. In fact, they believed they had identified Economic Determinism as the basic creative force in human progress. Having made this important discovery they felt that if they could somehow force upon mankind the influence of a highly perfected system of economic production it would automatically produce a highly perfected society which, in turn, would automatically produce a higher type of human being. In other words, they would reverse the Judaic-Christian approach which endeavors to improve humanity in order to improve society. Here again they were reaffirming their conviction that human beings are not the creators of society but its products: “The final causes of all social changes and political revolution are to be sought, not in men’s brains, not in man’s insight into eternal truth and justice… but in the economics of each particular epoch.”{28}
    Therefore, Marx and Engels advocated a change in economic structure as the only valid way of improving society and refining the intellectual make-up of humanity. But how can a new, improved system of production and distribution be introduced among men? What historical procedure has Economic Determinism unconsciously followed to bring mankind to its present state of advancement?

Human Progress Explained in Terms of Class Struggle

    Marx and Engels answered their own question by deciding that from earliest times the mode of production and the means of distribution have always produced two basic classes of people: those who owned the means of production and thereby became exploiters, and those who owned nothing and therefore had to sell or trade their physical labor to survive. The element of conflict between these two groups was identified by Marx and Engels as the basic force in history which has prompted the evolution of society toward ever-ascending levels of achievement.
    Here again Marx and Engels were applying the principles of Dialectics. All past societies have been a combination of opposite force or classes—the exploiters and the exploited. The clash between them has always generated the dynamic force which has propelled society into some new development. The transition, they noted, was often accompanied by revolution and violence.
    But must the course of human events always follow this never-ending cycle of clashes between the two opposing classes of society? Must there always be revolution to produce new orders which in turn are destroyed by revolution to produce others? Marx and Engels visualized a day when there would be unity among men instead of opposition, peace instead of war. Such a hope, of course, violated their own theory of dialectics which says nothing in nature can be at rest—everything is a unity of opposing forces. Nevertheless, Marx and Engels reasoned that since they had discovered the inexorable law of history with its self-improving device of class struggle, they would use one final, terrible class struggle for the purpose of permanently eliminating the thing which had caused all past conflicts in society. What is this one terrible feature of all past societies which has caused selfishness, jealousy, class struggle and war? Marx and Engels thought all of these things could be traced to one root—private property. If they used a final revolutionary class uprising to overthrow private property, it would mean that class struggle would become unnecessary because there would be nothing to fight over!

The Communist Theory Concerning Private Property

    Why do Communists believe that private property is the root of all evil?
    Engels then postulated that those who owned the land or other means of production would obviously reap the major profit from the economic resources of the community and ultimately this would place them in a position to hire other men to do their work. They would be able to dictate wages, hours and conditions of labor for their employees, thereby insuring their own freedom and social status while exploiting the toiling class. Therefore, said Engels, out of private property blossomed class antagonism with its entourage of camp followers: greed, pride, selfishness, imperialism and war. He said private property also had led to the necessity of creating the State.

The Communist Theory of the Origin of the State

    Engels decided that when the non-property class had been exploited to the point where there was danger of revolt, the dominant class created an organ of power to maintain “law and order,” that is, a system of laws to protect the private property and advantages of the exploiting class. This new order, he said, is the State.
    Therefore the State is designed to postpone the day of judgment. Government is the “instrument of power”—the unnatural appendage to society—which is created for the express press purpose of protecting the privileged class and the private property it possesses from the just demands of the exploited class. Marx and Engels reasoned that if they somehow could eliminate private property, it would do away with class struggle, and then the state would no longer be necessary and it would gradually wither away.

The Communist Theory of the Origin and Economic Significance of Religion

    Marx and Engels further believed that another great evil has grown out of private property—the exploitation of religion, They recognized, of course, that probably the roots of religion were established long before the institution of private property. However, they felt that since religion was not of divine origin it must have grown out of the frantic efforts of early man to explain the forces of nature and man’s psychic experiences such as dreams. When private property emerged as the foundation of society, they believed religion was seized upon as a device to put down the rebellion of the exploited class.
    This explains the presence of vigorous anti-religious campaigns in the Communist program: “One of the most important tasks of the Cultural Revolution affecting the wide masses is the task of systematically and unswervingly combating religion—the opium of the people.”{33} “There can be no doubt about the fact that the new state of the USSR is led by the Communist Party, with a program permeated by the spirit of militant atheism.”{34} “Have we suppressed the reactionary clergy? Yes, we have. The unfortunate thing is that it has not been completely liquidated.”{35}

The Communist Theory of the Origin and Economic Significance of Morals

    Up to this point Marx and Engels felt they had established that the evil of private property is responsible for the origin of class antagonisms, the creation of the State and the exploitation of religion. Now they attached a similar explanation to the origin and economic significance of morals. Engels and Marx denied that there could be any eternal basis for the moral standards of “right and wrong” set up in the Judaic-Christian code. Lenin summarized their ideas when he said: “In what sense do we deny ethics, morals? In the sense in which they are preached by the bourgeoisie, which deduces these morals from God’s commandments. Of course, we say that we do not believe in God. We know perfectly well that the clergy, the landlords, and the bourgeoisie all claimed to speak in the name of God, in order to protect their own interests as exploiters. We deny all morality taken from super-human or non-class concepts. We say that this is a deception, a swindle, a befogging of the minds of the workers and peasants in the interests of the landlords and capitalists.”{36}
    The Marxists believe that “Thou Shalt Not Steal” and “Thou Shalt Not Covet” are examples of the dominant class trying to impose respect for property on the exploited masses who cannot help but covet the wealth and property of their masters. As Engels said: “Thou shalt not steal. Does this law thereby become an eternal moral law? By no means.”{37} They called such teachings “class” morality—a code designed to protect the property class.
    But in rejecting the Judaic-Christian code of morals, Engels tried to represent that Communism was merely moving up to a higher level where human conduct will be motivated exclusively by the needs of society: “We say that our morality is wholly subordinated to the interest of the class-struggle of the proletariat.” But in spite of this attempt to delicately obscure the true significance of Communist moral thought, Engels could not prevent himself from occasionally unveiling the truth of what was in his mind: “We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma what-ever….”{38}
    In other words, Communism undertakes to replace Judaic-Christian morals with a complete absence of morals. That this was exactly what later Communists deduced from the teachings of their leaders is demonstrated in the words of a modern American Marxist: “With him (the Communist) the end justifies the means. Whether his tactics be ‘legal’ or ‘moral’ or not, does not concern him, so long as they are effective. He knows that the laws as well as the current code of morals are made by his mortal enemies…. Consequently, he ignores them insofar as he is able, and it, suits his purposes. He proposes to develop, regardless of capitalist conceptions of ‘legality,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘right,’ etc., a greater power than his capitalist enemies have….”{39}
    So now Marx and Engels had completed their original purposes in making an intensive study of history. They felt they had successfully explained the origin of the various institutions in society by showing that all of these were the product of Economic Determinism, and they felt they had traced to its source the cause of strife, inequity and injustice among men—private property. Only one task now remained for the master architects—to apply this knowledge to a “plan of action” which would permanently solve the economic, political and social ills of all mankind.

The Communist Plan of Action

    As Marx and Engels analyzed modern civilization they concluded that capitalistic society is rapidly reaching that point where a revolution is inevitable. This is the way they reasoned: After the overthrow of feudalism the capitalistic society came into being. At first it consisted primarily of individuals who owned their own land or their own workshops. Each man did his own work and reaped the economic benefits to which he was entitled. Then the industrial revolution came along and the private workshop was supplanted by the factory. Products no longer came from the private workshop but from the factory where the united effort of many individuals produced the commodity. Engels said manufacturing thereby became social production rather than private production. It was therefore wrong for private individuals to continue owning the factory because the factory had become a social institution. He argued that no private individual should get the profits from something which many people were required to produce.
    “But,” critics asked, “do not the workers share in the profits of the factory through their wages?”
    Marx and Engels did not believe that wages were adequate compensation for labor performed unless the workers received all the proceeds from the sale of the commodity. Since the hands of the workers produced the commodity they believed the workers should receive all the commodity was worth. They believed that the management and operation of a factory were only “clerical in nature” and that in the near future the working class should rise up and seize the factories or means of production and operate them as their own.
    “But does not the investment of the capitalist entitle him to some profit? Without his willingness to risk considerable wealth would there be any factory?”
    Marx and Engels answered this by saying that all wealth is created by the worker. Capital creates nothing. Marx and Engels believed that the reason certain men have been able to accumulate wealth is because they have taken away the fruits of the worker in the form of interest, rent or profits. They said this was “surplus value” which had been milked from the labor of men in the past and should be confiscated from the capitalists by the workers of the present.
    Marx and Engels now dared to predict the ultimate trend of development in modern capitalistic civilization. They said that just as private workshops had been taken over by the factory, so the small factory would be taken over by the big combine. They said the monopoly of capital would continue until it was concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer men while the number of exploited workers would grow proportionately. And while a few were becoming richer and richer the exploited class would get poorer and poorer. They predicted that the members of the so-called middle class who own small shops and businesses would be squeezed out of economic existence because they could not compete with the mammoth business combines. They also predicted that the government would be the instrument of power which the great banks and industrial owners would use to protect their ill-gotten wealth and to suppress the revolt of the exploited masses.
    In other words, all levels of society were being forced into the opposing camps of two antagonistic classes—the exploiting class of capitalistic property owners and the bitterly exploited class of the propertyless workers.
    They further predicted that the revolutionary explosion between these two classes would be sparked by the inevitable advancement of technological improvements in capitalistic industry. The rapid invention of more and more efficient machines was bound to throw more and more workers out of employment and leave their families to starve or perhaps survive on a bare subsistence level. In due time there would be sufficient hatred, resentment and class antagonism to motivate the workers in forming militant battalions to overthrow their oppressors by violence so that the means of production and all private property could be seized by the workers and operated for their own advantage.
    It is at this point that Communists and Socialists take different forks of the road. The Socialists have maintained from the beginning that centralized control of all land and industry can be achieved by peaceful legislation. Marx denounced this as a pipe dream. He held out for revolution. Nevertheless, he was quick to see some advantage in pushing forward any legislation which concentrated greater economic power in the central government. But he did not look upon such minor “victories of the Socialists” as anything more than a psychological softening up for the revolution which was to come.
    Marx further justified the use of violence to bring about the new society because he felt that if moral principles were followed the revolution would be abortive. He pointed to the failure of the Socialist Revolution in France during 1871: “Two errors robbed the brilliant victory of its fruit. The proletariat stopped half-way: instead of proceeding with the ‘expropriation of the expropriators,’ it was carried away with dreams of establishing supreme justice in the country…. The second error was unnecessary magnanimity of the proletariat: instead of annihilating its enemies, it endeavored to exercise moral influence on them.”{41}
    Marx attempted to soften the blow of his doctrine of violence by stating that he would be perfectly satisfied if the capitalistic state could be transformed into a Communist society by peaceful means; however, he pointed out that this would be possible only if the capitalists voluntarily surrendered their property and power to the representatives of the workers without a fight. He logically concludes that since this is rather unlikely it must be assumed that revolutionary violence is unavoidable.
    Marx and Engels were also convinced that the revolution must be international in scope. They knew that all countries would not be ready for the revolution at the same time, but all Marxist writers have emphasized the “impossibility of the complete and final victory of socialism in a single country without the victory of the revolution in other countries.”{42}

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

    Since they now believed a revolution was inevitable, the next question Marx and Engels asked was this: Should they wait for it to come in the normal course of events or should they take steps to promote the revolution and speed up the evolution of society toward Communism? Marx and Engels decided that it had become their manifest duty to see that the revolution was vigorously promoted. Why prolong the suffering? The old society was doomed. In the light of the principles discovered by Marx and Engels perhaps the race could be saved a dozen generations of exploitation and injustice simply by compressing this entire phase of social evolution into a single generation of violent readjustment.
    They felt it could be done in three steps: First, by wiping out the old order. “There is but one way of simplifying, shortening, concentrating the death agony of the old society as well as the bloody labor of the new world’s birth—Revolutionary Terror.”{43} Second, the representatives of the working class must then set up a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Joseph Stalin described the things which must be accomplished during this period of the dictatorship:
    1. Completely suppress the old capitalist class.
    2. Create a mighty army of “defense” to be used “for the consolidation of the ties with the proletarians of other lands, and for the development and the victory of the revolution in all countries.”
    3. Consolidate the unity of the masses in support of the Dictatorship.
    4. Establish universal socialism by eliminating private property and preparing all mankind for the ultimate adoption of full Communism.{44}
    Third, the final step is the transition from socialism to full Communism. Socialism is characterized by state owner ship of land and all means of production. Marx and Engels believed that after awhile when class consciousness has disappeared and there is no further resistance to be overcome, the state will gradually wither away and then property will automatically belong to all mankind “in common.” Later Lenin explained how the Dictatorship of the Proletariat would pave the way for this final phase. He said the dictatorship would be “an organization for the systematic use of violence by one class against the other, by one part of the population against another…. But, striving for Socialism, we are convinced that it will develop further into Communism, and, side by side with this, there will vanish all need for force, for the subjection of one man to another, of one section of society to another, since people will grow accustomed to observing the elementary conditions of social existence without force and without subjection.”{45}
    Even in the latter stages of Socialism, Lenin visualized a world without courts, lawyers, judges, rulers, elected representatives or even policemen. All these would be swept down into the limbo of forgotten and useless appendages which characterized the old order of decadent capitalism. Lenin said the spontaneous homogeneity of the socialized masses would make all the machinery of the old order superfluous. He felt that the new society would even change human nature until resistance to the communal society would become “a rare exception and will probably be accompanied by such swift and severe punishment (for the armed workers are men of practical life, not sentimental intellectuals, and they will scarcely allow anyone to trifle with them), and very soon the necessity of observing the simple, fundamental rules of everyday social life in common will have become a habit. The door will then be open for the transition from the first phase of communism to the higher phase (full Communism).”{46}

The Classless, Stateless Society Under Full Communism

    All Marxists fervently hope that the new society will produce the changes in human nature which are necessary before full Communism can become a reality. Individuals must forget that there was ever a time when income could be secured from the mere ownership of property or from productive labor. In other words, wages will be abolished. They must forget that some people once received very large incomes while others received small ones. They must lose any hope of a graduated pay-scale for differences in productivity or service. They must forget all about differences in skill, training, and mental or physical abilities. They must come around to the notion that, if man does the best he can in the best type of work for which he is fitted, he is just as good and just as deserving of income as any other man regardless of differences in productivity and output.
    This is the Communist promise that, “Each will produce according to his ability and each will receive according to his need.” He must give up his old profit-motive incentive and become socially minded so that he will work as hard as he can for the benefit of society as a whole and at the same time be content to receive, as a reward for his work, an amount of income based on his needs in consumption.
    Marx and Engels presumed that under such a system the output of production would be so tremendous that they could dispense with markets, money and prices. Commodities would be stockpiled at various central places, and all individuals who worked would be entitled to help themselves on the basis of their needs. Marx and Engels felt there would be no particular incentive to take more than was needed at any one time because, due to the superabundance of commodities, the worker could replenish his desires at will. Services were likewise to be dispensed at convenient places and individuals could call for these services as they felt they were needed.
    Under these pleasant circumstances, the Marxist writers explain, the government machinery of the State will no longer be necessary:
    “Only Communism renders the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is no one to be suppressed—‘no one’ in the sense of a class, in the sense of a systematic struggle with a definite section of the population. We are not Utopians (believing that society can function on a sublime level of perfection), and we do not in the least deny the possibility and inevitability of excesses on the part of individual persons, nor the need to suppress such excesses. But, in the first place, no special machinery, no special apparatus of repression is needed for this: this will be done by the armed people itself, as simply and as readily as any crowd of civilized people, even in modern society, parts a pair of combatants or does not allow a woman to be outraged. And, secondly, we know that the fundamental social cause of excesses… is the exploitation of the masses, their want and their poverty. With the removal of this chief cause, excesses will inevitably begin to ‘wither away.’ We do not know how quickly and in what succession, but we know that they will wither away. With their withering away, the state will also wither away.”{47}
    It is significant that Communist theory treats the proletariat as though it were a unique branch of the human race. The proletariat is assumed to be a special breed which would almost automatically blossom into pleasant, efficient social-economic living if it could just be liberated from oppressive government. The government is presumed to be nothing more than the tool of an oppressive class of capitalists and consequently, if the capitalist class were destroyed, the need for any kind of government would be obliterated. The Communist leaders have always felt confident that when the proletariat takes over it will not want to oppress anyone and therefore the need for government will be nonexistent.
    It is also worthy of note that Lenin wanted the proletariat to be an “armed people.” This prospect did not frighten Lenin at all. He had unmitigated confidence that the members of the proletariat would never abuse their power as the capitalists had done. Furthermore, Lenin assumed that the proletariat had the instinctive capacity to recognize justice on sight. Not only would they use their weapons to put down any nonsocial acts in the community by spontaneous “mass action,” but Lenin believed they would genuinely and heroically suppress any selfish, nonsocial tendencies in themselves. They would have acquired the “habit” of living in a communal social order and would have grown “accustomed to observing the elementary conditions of social existence without force and without subjection.”
    Lenin then says that with the machinery of government gone and with the Communist pattern of a classless, stateless society established throughout the world, finally “it becomes possible to speak of freedom!”{48}

A Brief Critique of the Communist Approach to World Problems

    The modern student of history and economics will have little difficulty discovering for himself where Communist theory departs from the most elementary aspects of reality.
    Disciples of Marx look upon the theories of Communism as the most penetrating analysis of history ever made by man, but many scholars look upon the whole Communist framework as more or less the product of the times in which Marx and Engels lived. The writings of these men clearly reflect a studied attempt to reconcile the five great influences of their generation, which they tried to bring together in one single pattern of thought. The influences which left their mark on the minds of Marx and Engels were:
    First, the violent economic upheaval of their day. This is believed to have made Marx and Engels over-sensitive to the place of economics in history.
    Second, the widespread popularity of the German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Hegel. His theory of “Dialectics” was adopted by Marx and Engels with slight modification to explain all phenomena of nature, the class struggle and the inevitable triumph of a future proletariat society.
    Third, the anti-religious cynicism of Nineteenth Century Materialism. This led them to try to explain everything in existence in terms of one single factor—matter. They denied intelligent design in the universe, the existence of God, the divinity of religion and the moral precepts of Judaic-Christian teachings.
    Fourth, the social and economic ideals of Utopian Communism. Marx and Engels decided they wanted a communal society, but they felt it had to be a controlled society; they therefore abandoned the brotherhood principle of the Utopians and declared that Communism could only be initiated under a powerful dictatorship.
    Fifth, the revolutionary spirit of the Anarchists. Marx and Engels promised two things which appealed to the Anarchists—the use of violent revolution to overthrow existing powers, and eventually the creation of a classless, stateless society.
    It is because of these five important influences that the student of Communism will find it to be a vast conglomerate, designed; it would seem, to be all things to all people.

Communism as a By-Product of the Industrial Revolution

    Marx and Engels were born in the midst of the Industrial Revolution. Before this revolution four out of every five citizens were farmers, but by the time Marx and Engels were ready for college the mass migration of farmers to the industrial centers was reaching the proportions of a flood tide. The resulting concentration of the population created slum-ridden cities which, in turn, contributed to disease, violence and vice. It was a chain-reaction which grew out of the amazing new machine-age. Pioneers of the Industrial Revolution looked upon machines as the pounding, pumping, inanimate monsters that would eventually liberate mankind from the slavery of “bare-subsistence” economics, but the negative critics saw in them only the problems they created—dislocation of the population, maladjustment for the individual, the family and the community, and finally, the inhuman treatment of the men, women and children who served industry.
    Thus, Marx and Engels, like many others, felt a violent reaction to the times in which they lived. Because it was a period of economic upheaval, perhaps it is understandable that they should have reached the conclusion that economic forces constitute the cruel and ruthless iron hand which has guided the course of all human history. It is at this point that we begin our critique of Communist theory.

The Communist Interpretation of History

    Fallacy 1—The first fallacy of Communism is its attempt to over-simplify history. Marx and Engels attempted to change history from a fluid stream, fed by human activities from millions of tributaries, into a fixed, undeviating, pre-determined course of progress which could be charted in the past and predicted for the future on the basis of a single, simple criterion—economics. Obviously economics have played a vital and powerful role in human history but so have climate, topography, access to oceans and inland waterways, mechanical inventions, scientific discoveries, national and racial affinities, filial affection, religion, desire for explanatory adventure, sentiments of loyalty, patriotism and a multitude of other factors.
    A number of modern Communists have admitted that history is molded by all of these different influences, but they have insisted that Marx and Engels intended to include all of them in their Economic Determinism; because all of these things directly or indirectly affect the economic life of humanity. However, the writings of Marx and Engels fail to reflect any such interpretation. Even if they did, the modern Marxist would still be in difficulty because if Economic Determinism is intended to include every influence in life then the Communist formula for interpreting history would be: “Everything determines everything.” As a basis for interpreting history this would be absurd.
    Another group of modern Communists has tried to extricate Marx and Engels from the narrow confines of Economic Determinism by suggesting that economic circumstances do not absolutely determine the course of human history but merely condition men to follow after a particular trend in social development.{49} But this, of course, while coming closer to the truth, presumes a variable element of free will in the making of history which Marx and Engels emphatically denied. In fact, Economic Determinism in the absolute, fixed and undeviating sense is the very foundation for the prediction of Marx and Engels that society must follow an inevitable course of development from capitalism to socialism and from socialism to Communism. This is what they meant when they said of capitalism: “Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.”{50}
    Furthermore, when any modern Marxist attempts to argue that the course of human progress is not fixed and inevitable he destroys the entire justification for the Communist Revolution—that violent upheaval which Marx said was the “one way of simplifying, shortening, concentrating the death agony of the old society.”{51} There is no excuse for the use of lethal violence to concentrate and simplify the death of the old society unless the death of that society is, in fact, inevitable. That was the heart of Marx’s argument. His excuse for revolution falters if it is admitted that the death of the old society is merely one of several possibilities and not necessarily inevitable. Likewise, his excuse is exploded if it is shown that the present society is not dying at all but is actually more robust than ever before and seems to be contributing more to the welfare of mankind with each passing generation.
    So the Communist interpretation of history on the basis of Economic Determinism turns out to be a weak and brittle reed even in the hands of its defenders. The disciples of Marx have recognized its weaknesses and tried to patch it up but the patches have only created new splinters in the already frail, dry straws of Communist logic.
    Fallacy 2—Marx and Engels not only over-simplified history, but they relied on a second fallacy in order to justify the first. They said that the human mind is incapable of moral free will in the sense that it makes a choice in directing the course of history. Marx and Engels believed that material circumstances force the human mind to move in a certain direction and that man does not have the free will to resist it.
    This sounds like the teachings of the Nineteenth Century Mechanistic Materialists who claimed that the brain is somewhat like a passive wax tablet which receives impressions from the outside world and then responds automatically to them; but Marx and Engels did not want to be identified with this school of thought. They therefore said the run-of-the-mill materialists had made a mistake. The brain is not passive like a wax tablet but is an active embodiment which not only receives impressions from the outside world but has the ability to digest those impressions through a process of analysis and synthesis. Then came the joker.
    They declared that after the brain has digested its impressions of the outside world it always decides to do whatever is necessary for the preservation of the individual in the light of material circumstances. In their own subtle way they were simply saying that man is the victim of his material environment. By a slightly different line of thinking they had reached exactly the same conclusions as the mechanistic materialists whom they had repudiated.
    It will be recalled from the previous chapter that Marx and Engels identified the thing we call “free will” as being nothing more nor less than a conscious awareness of the materialistic forces which impel the individual to act. This conscious awareness of “natural necessity” makes men think they are choosing a course of action, when, as matter of fact, they are simply watching themselves follow the dictates of material circumstances.
    Once again it will be seen that Marx and Engels over-simplified. The complexities of human behavior cannot be explained simply in terms of “necessary” responses to material circumstances. Often men defy material circumstances to satisfy numerous other motivations such as the desire for self-expression, the moving power of a religious conviction, the drive of a moral sense of duty, the satisfying of personal pride or the realizing of a personal ambition.
    This fallacy—the refusal to recognize man’s moral agency and the power to make a choice is fatal to Marxism. It is the initial error on which a multitude of other fallacies are built. When Communism says the human mind is the absolute victim of material circumstances and that human history is merely the unavoidable response of human beings to physical conditions, it must demonstrate these claims with examples. Note how this fallacy compounds itself as Marx and Engels attempt to use it in explaining the structure of society.

The Communist Explanation of Society

    Fallacy 3—First of all, Marx and Engels said the form of society is automatically determined by the economic conditions which motivate the dominant class in any particular age. As Marx put it: “Are men free to choose this or that form of society for themselves? By no means. Assume a particular state of development in the productive forces of man and you will get a particular form of commerce and consumption. Assume a particular stage of development in production, commerce and consumption and you will have a corresponding social structure, a corresponding organization of the family, of orders or of classes, in a word, a corresponding civil society. Presuppose a particular civil society and you will get particular political conditions which are only the official expression of civil society.”{52}
    It seems inconceivable that Marx and Engels could have allowed wishful thinking to so completely obscure the facts of history that they would have convinced themselves that when a certain type of production exists a certain type of society must exist also. In ancient times the mode of production remained the same for centuries while society ran the gamut of almost continuous change. Historians and economists have pointed out that if history demonstrates anything at all it is the fact that there is no direct relation between mode of production and the form society will take. Let us see why.

The Origin of the State

    Sociologists, psychologists, historians and political scientists point out that not by any stretch of imagination can government be called an appendage to society because it is the very heart of group living. This is true because society cannot exist unless it is governed by some degree of authority, and the presence of authority in society constitutes “government.” Man is by nature a social and political being, and therefore the creation of governments to direct the members of the community toward their common welfare is simply an inherent expression of the very nature of man. Therefore a stateless society (a civilization without a government) which Marx and Engels vigorously advocated would be an unorganized mob. It would be no society at all.
    Fallacy 5—Marx and Engels also encounter difficulty when the form of the State is explained as an inevitable outgrowth of some particular form of economic circumstances. If this were true then the same mode of production would always produce the same essential form of government. Let us take a look at the history of ancient Greece and ancient Rome. In both of these nations the fundamental mode of production was slavery. According to the Marxian explanation the form of these governments should have remained approximately the same so long as the mode of production (slavery) remained in effect.
    But contrary to Marxian expectations we find both these governments passing through many changes even though the mode of production did not change. In Athens there was a succession of hereditary monarchies, followed by the aristocratic and democratic republics, then the despotism of the thirty tyrants and finally democracy was established once again. In Rome there was first an elective royalty followed by the aristocratic and democratic republics, and then came the absolute monarchy under the Caesars. These are typical of the incidents in history where the form of the government has changed while the mode of production has remained the same.
    Now let us illustrate the fallacy of this Communist theory another way. If the form of the State is fixed by Economic Determinism, then the form of the State should change when the mode of production changes. But this seldom happens. Take the history of the United States for instance. The form of the U.S. Government has remained essentially the same since its founding. Was the government different in the slave-economy of the south than the industrial economy of the north? Did the government in the south change after slavery was abolished? The mode of production changed, the form of government did not. In other words, men can create any form of government they wish without reference to the prevailing mode of production. There are many historical examples which clearly refute this important Communist concept.
    Fallacy 6—In connection with the creation of the State, the Communists also maintain that a code of laws is developed to protect the exploiting class; further, that if the mode of production changes the code of laws will have to be reformulated to foster the specific new mode of production. Logically, this would mean that each time there is a revolutionary change in the mode of production there will have to be a revolutionary change in the system of law. In no instance should the same code of law be capable of serving nations which are under different modes of production.
    Once again history throws confusion on Communism when this theory is applied to specific situations. One of the best examples is the history of the Western World where radical changes in methods of production have often been followed by no more than minor alterations in the various codes of law. Modern capitalistic society throughout Europe and America is, in general, governed by codes of law which are founded on the same fundamental principle as those which prevailed centuries before the Industrial Revolution. In England the Common Law was developed during the days of a feudal economy. The overthrow of Feudalism only strengthened the Common Law, and it was further strengthened after the Industrial Revolution. In America the abolition of slavery did not overthrow the fundamental legal code of either the states or the nation. These are simple examples of the rather obvious historical fact that there is no essential dependence between society’s method of production and the code of laws which it chooses to create.

What Is Religion?

    Fallacy 7—Communism further alleges that religion is not of divine origin but is simply a man-made tool used by the dominant class to suppress the exploited class. Marx and Engels described religion as the opiate of the people which is designed to lull them into humble submission and an acceptance of the prevailing mode of production which the dominant class desires to perpetuate. Any student of history would agree that there have been times in history when unscrupulous individuals and even misdirected religious organizations have abused the power of religion, just as all other institutions of society have been abused at various times.
    But it was not the abuse of religion which Marx and Engels deplored as much as the very existence of religion. They considered it a creation of the dominant class, a tool and a weapon in the hands of the oppressors. They pointed out the three-fold function of religion from their point of view: first, it teaches respect for property rights; second, it teaches the poor their duties towards the property and prerogatives of the ruling class; and third, it instills a spirit of acquiescence among the exploited poor so as to destroy their revolutionary spirit.
    The New Testament denunciation of the selfish rich is just as pointed: “Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you…. Behold, the hire of the laborers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.”{55}
    It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of god.{56}
    As to the allegation of the Communist that religion makes men passive, we have only to observe that the dynamic power of religious convictions is precisely what prevents a soundly religious person from accepting Communist oppression and Communist mandates. A person practicing the teachings of the Judaic-Christian philosophy will not lie or steal on command. He will not shed innocent blood. He will not participate in the diabolical Communist practice of genocide—the systematic extermination of entire nations or classes.
    It is clearly evident from the numerous Communist writings that what they fear in religion is not that it makes religious people passive to the dominant class but that it prevents them from becoming passive to Communist discipline. Deep spiritual convictions stand like a wall of resistance to challenge the teachings and practices of Communism.
    Furthermore, the Communist sees in the dynamic ideology of Judaic-Christian teachings a force for peace which cuts through the vitals of Communism’s campaign for world-wide revolution. As Anatole Lunarcharsky, the former Russian Commissar of Education declared: “We hate Christians and Christianity. Even the best of them must be considered our worst enemies. They preach love of one’s neighbor and mercy, which is contrary to our principles. Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the Revolution. Down with love of our neighbor! What we want is hate…. Only then can we conquer the universe.”{57}

The Communist Theory of Morals

    Fallacy 8—Communist writers likewise maintain that the Judaic-Christian code of ethics is “class” morality. By this they mean that the Ten Commandments and the ethics of Christianity were created to protect private property and the property class. To show the lengths to which Communist writers have gone to defend this view we will mention several of their favorite interpretations of the Ten Commandments. They believe that “Honor thy Father and thy Mother” was created by the early Hebrews to emphasize to their children the fact that they were the private property of their parents. “Thou shalt not kill” was attributed to the belief of the dominant class that their bodies were private property and therefore they should be protected along with other property rights. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife” were said to have been created to implement the idea that a husband was the master of the home and the wife was strictly private property belonging to him.
    This last line of reasoning led to some catastrophic consequences when the Communists came into power in Russia. In their anxiety to make women “equal with men” and prevent them from becoming private property, they degraded womankind to the lowest and most primitive level. Some Communist leaders advocated complete libertinism and promiscuity to replace marriage and the family. Excerpts from a decree issued in the Soviet of Saralof will illustrate the point:
    “Beginning with March 1, 1919, the right to possess women between the ages of 17 and 32 is abolished… this decree, however, not being applicable to women who have five children…. By virtue of the present decree no woman can any longer be considered as private property and all women become the property of the nation…. The distribution and maintenance of nationalized women, in conformity with the decision of responsible organizations, are the prerogative of the group of Saralof anarchists…. All women thus put at the disposition of the nation must, within three days after the publication of the present decree, present themselves in person at the address indicated and provide all necessary information….
    “Any man who wishes to make use of a nationalized woman must hold a certificate issued by the administrative Council of a professional union, or by the Soviet of workers, soldiers or peasants, attesting that he belongs to the working class…. Every worker is required to turn in 2% of his salary to the fund…. Male citizens not belonging to the working class may enjoy the same rights provided they pay a sum equivalent to 250 French francs, which will be turned over to the public fund…. Any women who by virtue of the present decree will be declared national property will receive from the public fund a salary equivalent to 575 French francs a month….
    Another document which illustrates the kind of “liberation” which women received under the Communist version of morality is contained in a decision handed down by a Soviet official in whom he said: “There is no such thing as a woman being violated by a man; he who says that a violation is wrong denies the October Communist Revolution. To defend a violated woman is to reveal oneself as a bourgeois and a partisan of private property.”{59}
    Only one other thought need be added concerning the Communist allegation that Judaic-Christian morals represent a “class” morality. That is the fact that not only is it quite simple to illustrate that such an allegation is untrue but it is also quite simple to illustrate that the most perfect example of “class” morality on the face of the earth today is Communism. Of the 180,000,000 people in Russia, only about 3,000,000 are members of the Communist party. This small ruling minority ruthlessly compels the remainder of the people to accept its decision as to what is good and what is bad.
    Communist morals follow a simple formula. Anything which Promotes the communist cause is good; anything which hinders it is bad. Upon examination, that philosophy turns out to be a code of opportunism and expediency, or a code of no morals at all. Anyone who does not conform to the dictates of the Party as to what is good for Communism and what is not, is subjected to the most severe penalties under Articles 131 and 133 of the Soviet Constitution. Thus, the perfect example of “class” morality, which the Marxists attribute to the Judaic-Christian code, is to be found right in the Communist plan of action itself.

The Communist Theory of Class Struggle

    Fallacy 9—The next fallacy is the claim of Marx and Engels that they had discovered the secret of human progress. This was identified by them as “class struggle.”
    As the student will recall, they said that when men became aware that slavery was a satisfactory mode of production, they built a society designed to protect the rights of the slave owner. They further believed that if this state of affairs had never been challenged the mode of production by slavery would have become a permanent fixture and society likewise would have been fixed. But Marx and Engels found, as do all students of history, that the economic order passed from slavery to feudalism and then from feudalism to capitalism. What caused this? They decided it was class struggle. They decided the slaves overthrew their masters and created a new mode of production based on feudalism. A society was then developed to protect this mode of production until the serfs overthrew their lords and set up a mode of production characterized by free-enterprise capitalism. Modern society, they said, is to protect capitalism.
    Critics declare that Marx and Engels apparently ignored some of the most obvious facts of history. For example, the decay and overthrow of ancient civilizations such as Egypt, Greece and Rome had nothing to do with slaves rising up against their masters:
    “The slaves of those days were for the most part subservient, abject, and helpless creatures, whose occasional murmurings and rebellions were suppressed with horrible cruelty. Those were not class struggles of the imaginary Marxian type and did not bring the transition to feudalism. Engels himself says that toward the end of the Roman Empire slaves were scarce and dear; that the latifundia, which were great agricultural estates based on slave labor, were no longer profitable; that small-scale farming by colonists and tenants was relatively lucrative; and that, in short, ‘slavery died because it did not pay any longer.’ Then came the barbarian invasion, the downfall of Rome, and the establishment of feudalism as the result of the conquest of a higher civilization by a lower and not through the alleged driving force of a class struggle.”{60}
    Similar historical problems exist for Marx and Engels in connection with the transition of society from feudalism to capitalism.
    Fallacy 10—Not only does Communism fail in its attempt to account for past progress on the basis of class struggle, but it also fails in its prediction that class antagonism would increase under capitalism in the future. One hundred years have failed to develop the two violently antagonistic classes which Marx and Engels said were inevitable.
    Communist agitators have done everything in their power to fan the flame of artificial class-consciousness in the minds of the workers, but the basic struggle between labor and capital has not been to overthrow capitalism but to get the workers a more equitable share of the fruits of capitalism. For example, during the past twenty years labor has attained a higher status in the United States than ever before. The Communists tried to seize leadership in this reform trend, but the more the workers earned the more independent they became—not only by asserting their rights in relation to their employers but also in discharging the Communist agitators from labor union leadership. Workers did not respond to the Communist call to overthrow capitalism, and Communist writers have admitted this with some bitterness.
    At the same time, both governmental and industrial leaders generally developed the philosophy that strong buying power in labor is essential to keep the wheels of industry moving. Labor therefore came closer to assuming its proper role as an integral part of capitalism than ever before. This trend leaves Communism completely undone because such a development makes labor an indispensable part of capitalism rather than its class-conscious enemy.
    Fallacy 11—Another Communist premise which has failed is the assumption that under capitalism all wealth would be gradually monopolized until a handful of men would own everything and the exploited, propertyless class would be the overwhelming majority of mankind. Instead of growing, however, the propertyless proletariats actually have been decreasing under capitalism. Marx wrote his massive tome on Capital while he was living in the most abject poverty. He looked upon the proletariat as those who were living under conditions similar to his own—people who had absolutely no property and no capital interests.
    Today, in the highly-developed capitalistic nation of the United States, the only people who could be classed as proletariat under Marx’s definition would be those who own no land, have no savings deposits, no social security, no retirement benefits, no life insurance, no corporate securities and no government bonds, for all these represent the ownership of productive wealth or of money, funds over and beyond the immediate needs of consumption. Such a class of propertyless proletariat does exist in the United States just as there has been one in all nations and in all ages, but the significant thing is that the proletariat in the United States is such a small minority that Marx would scarcely want to claim it. Under American capitalism wealth has been more widely distributed among the people than in any large nation in secular history. This has reduced the property-less class which Marx had in mind to little more than a fringe of the population.
    In contrast to this we find that the country which really does have the majority of its population in a class of property-less proletariat is the Motherland of Communism where the Dictatorship of the Proletariat has been in force for over thirty-five years!
    Fallacy 12—Marx’s theory on wages also collapsed with the passing of time. He assumed that technological developments would make machines more and more efficient and therefore throw so many men out of work that they would compete for jobs until wages would become more and more meager. Technological development has actually created more jobs than it has destroyed and, except during intervals of depression, the long-range trend in capitalism has been to get closer and closer to the economic dream of “full-employment.”
    Fallacy 13—Since Marx believed that wages would become smaller and smaller he assumed that the only possible way to attain an adequate living would be by owning property. That is why he said the possession of property was the one thing which distinguished the proletariat from the exploiting class. This conclusion was another major error. Today some individuals may readily receive $10,000 a year for the sale of their labor services while others live on incomes of $2,500 derived from the ownership of property. In such cases it would certainly seem ludicrous to call the first group proletariat and the second group exploiting bourgeoisie. Under capitalism the ownership of property is certainly not the only means of gaining adequate economic independence.
    Fallacy 14—Marx and Engels also failed in trying to predict what would happen to the middle class under capitalism. They said the middle class would be forced to follow the dismal process of sinking back into the propertyless class so that ultimately there would be just two violently antagonistic classes—the capitalists and the propertyless proletariat. The very opposite happened. Economists have made studies which show that the middle class (consisting of people who are neither extremely prosperous nor exceptionally poor) has been rapidly growing. As a group the members of the middle class have increased in number, in wealth and in proportion to the rest of the population.{61}
    Fallacy 15—Another fallacy in Communism is the theory that class struggle leads to “necessary progress.” In this theory Marx and Engels attempted to apply the dialectics of their philosophy which say that out of struggle between two opposing forces an inescapable new evolutionary advancement is made. This fails to explain the unprogressiveness which has characterized many nations for centuries—nations such as India, China, Egypt, Arabia and the populations in East Asia.
    It also fails to explain one of the most obvious facts of history, namely, the retrogression of civilizations. The whole pattern of human experience shows that nations rise to a summit of power and then pass through moral and intellectual decay to lose their cultural standing and economic predominance. This is vastly easier to demonstrate in history than the theory that class struggle has lifted man through an ever-ascending series of stages called “necessary progress.”
    Fallacy 16—Finally, the failure of class struggle to explain the past also failed Marx and Engels when they tried to predict what would happen in their own lifetime. They said that Communism would come first in those countries which were most highly capitalistic because the class struggle would become more sharply defined as capitalism increased. On this basis they thought Communism would come first in Germany.{62} A few years later Marx shifted his prediction to England.{63}
    It was ironical that Communism (at least the Dictatorship of the proletariat) should first come to Russia—a nation which in economic matters was one of the least developed among all the countries in Europe. Furthermore, Communism came as a coup in Russia, not through any class struggle on the part of the workers. It came through the conspiratorial intrigue of V. I. Lenin, who was encouraged by the German High Command to go into Russia during the closing months of World War I and use a small, hard core of revolutionaries to seize the provisional government which had but recently forced the Tzar to abdicate and was at the moment representing the working class, as much as anyone else, in setting up a democratic constitution.
    Communism therefore did not come to Russia as the natural outcome of class struggle but like any other dictatorship—by the military might of a small minority. This brings us to the fallacy of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat.”

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

    Fallacy 17—This proposed monopoly of political and economic power was designed to do many things for the good of humanity, but experience has proven them to be false dreams. For example, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was designed to spread the enjoyment of wealth among the people by abolishing private property and putting all means of production in the hands of the government. Why did they want to do this? They said it was to prevent all property and wealth from falling into the hands of private capitalists.
    But what happened when the Communists attempted to do this in Russia? It destroyed what little division of wealth there was and sent the economy hurtling back in the direction of feudalism—an economic system under which a few privileged persons dispense the necessities of life by arbitrary determination while at the same time dictating the way in which all important phases of life shall be lived by the citizens.
    The folly of Marx and Engels was in failing to distinguish the difference between the right of private property and the abuse of private property. They were going to get rid of the abuse by abolishing the right. The problem of humanity has not been the right to own private property but how to provide an equitable distribution of property rights so that many people could enjoy them. Therefore, Communist theory does not solve the problem because of the simple fact that putting all property back under the supervision of the hirelings of a dictatorship launches a trend toward monopoly of property rather than toward a wider distribution of its enjoyment.
    Fallacy 18—The Dictatorship of the Proletariat was also designed to compensate each man for work performed rather than for wages earned. But by abolishing wages in favor of labor certificates, Communist leaders were simply abandoning the prevailing medium of exchange. After the Communist revolution in Russia it was found that this idea forced that nation to resort to a primitive barter system. The whole idea was so disastrous that it had to be abandoned after a few months. The Communists learned that the problem of equalizing wages is not solved by abolishing wages per se.
    Fallacy 19—The Dictatorship of the Proletariat was also intended to permit the creation of a huge “defense” army which would help “liberate” the proletariat in other nations until finally the Dictatorship would cover the entire earth.
    This veiled attempt to obscure the imperialistic ambitions of Communist leaders for world conquest is still employed. Their armies are always described as being for “defense” and the victims of their aggression as being “liberated.” Recent world history has provided a tragic commentary on the role of Communist liberation.
    Fallacy 20—The Dictatorship of the Proletariat was further expected to give the Communist leaders time to demonstrate to the masses the effectiveness of their plan so as to insure a unity of support for “full communism” which was soon to follow. The Communist Dictatorship in Russia has had no such power to persuade. In fact, the violence which, was authorized for use against the capitalist class has had to be turned loose with equal fury on the proletariat or working class so that today the masses have been reduced to a state of numb and fearful acquiescence rather than a “unity of support” for the Communist cause.

The Stateless, Classless Society Under Full Communism

    Fallacy 21—The Communist dream of a great new “one world” of the future is based on the belief that a regime of violence and coercion under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat would permit the establishment of a society which would produce a new order of men who would acquire the habit of observing what Lenin called the “simple fundamental rules of every-day social life in common.”
    The fallacy of this hope lies in Communism’s perverted interpretation of human behavior. It assumes, on the basis of Dialectical Materialism, that if you change things outside of a man this automatically compels a change on the inside of the man. The inter-relation between environment on the outside and the internal make-up of man is not to be disputed, but environment only conditions man, it does not change his very nature. For example, just as men will always laugh, eat, propagate, gravitate into groups and explore the unknown, so likewise they will always enjoy the pleasure of possessing things (which alone gives pleasure to sharing); they will always possess the desire for individual expression or self-determination, the ambition to improve their circumstances and the motive to excel above others. These qualities are inherent in each generation and cannot be legislated away nor ignored.
    Therefore no amount of violence and coercion will ever develop permanent habits of observing the “simple fundamental rules of every-day social life in common” if that social life violates the very nature of man. No matter how man is suppressed he will harbor in his very nature a passionate instinct for freedom to express these desires which are his by inheritance rather than by acquisition. That is why these desires cannot be ignored, and that is why they will not be annihilated even under the ruthless suppressions of a militant Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They will surely rise to assert themselves the very moment the dictatorship shows signs of “withering away.”
    Sixty centuries of history have demonstrated that society succeeds only when it tempers man’s natural instincts and inclinations, In fact, these same qualities of human nature which Communism would try to abolish are the very things which, under proper circumstances, men find to be the sources of satisfaction, strength and well-being which lead to progress for both the individual and for society as a whole.
    Fallacy 22—Marx and Engels were so anxious to discredit capitalism that they spent most of their time on that particular theme and never got around to revealing the complete pattern for “full communism” which was to replace capitalism; nevertheless, we do have sufficient information to reveal its congenital weaknesses. One of these is the axiom that “Each will produce according to his ability; each will receive according to his need.”
    This perhaps sounds excellent when one is dealing with a handicapped person, because society is willing to make up to an obviously handicapped person that which he cannot do for himself. But what happens when this is applied to the whole society? Recently a teacher asked his students what they thought about this Communist slogan, and they all seemed to think it was fine. The teacher then said he would give them a little demonstration of what would happen in school if “each produced according to his capacity and each received according to his need.” Said he:
    “To get a passing grade in this class you must receive 75. Therefore, if any of you get 95 I will take off 20 points and give it to a student who only gets 55. If a student gets 90 I will take off 15 points and give it to a student who only makes 60. In this way everyone will get by.”
    Immediately there was a storm of protest from the brighter, hard-working students in the class, but the lazy or less studious pupils thought it was a fine idea. Finally the teacher explained:
    “In the long run I don’t think any of you would like this system. Here is what would happen. First, the highly productive pupils—and they are always a minority in school as well as in life—would soon lose all incentive for producing. Why strive to make a high grade if part of it is taken from you by ‘authority’ and given to someone else? Second, the less productive pupils—a majority in school as elsewhere—would, for a time, be relieved of the necessity to study or to produce. This would continue until the high producers had sunk or had been driven down to the level of the low producers and therefore had nothing to contribute to their companions. At that point, in order for anyone to survive, the ‘authority’ would have no alternative but to begin a system of compulsory labor and punishments against even the low producers. They, of course, would then complain bitterly, but without understanding just what had happened.”{64}
    In terms of Communism this need for “authority” would simply mean returning to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in order to force all workers to produce more of life’s necessities. But the Dictatorship of the Proletariat fails, even with force, to make men produce according to their ability. As in the example cited by the school teacher, this is because Communism has deliberately destroyed the most ordinary work incentives. Let us list four of them:
    1. Increased reward for increased production.
    2. Increased reward for working harder to develop improved products.
    3. Increased reward for working harder to provide improved services.
    4. The right of the worker to buy and develop property with the accumulation of past rewards (profits) over and beyond the needs of consumption and thereby improve the circumstances of himself and his family.
    The Communist leaders seem to have misunderstood the universal lesson of life that man’s greatest enemy is inertia and that the mainspring of action to combat inertia is not force but the opportunity for self-improvement. Marx and Engels insisted that such an attitude is selfish and “non-social,” but the plain fact is that a worker finds it difficult to work harder in order to fill the stomachs of “society” when the fruits of his labor do not first take care of himself and his family.
    The Communists thought they could drive out this “non-social” attitude with force, but thirty-five years of Dictatorship in Russia have vividly demonstrated that men will not work according to their ability unless they are compensated according to their ability. Even the Communist leaders know force has failed. Under the whip of the Dictatorship the workers have barely produced enough to survive. The Communist leaders therefore say that the Dictatorship must be continued indefinitely. So long as the workers fail to produce according to their ability there certainly can be no talk of “full Communism” where each will receive according to his need.
    Fallacy 23—In studying the theories of Marx and Engels the student soon becomes aware that they failed to take into account some of the most elementary facts of life. For example, they assumed that in a stateless society mass-rule (which always turns out to be mob-rule) would be more discriminating and discerning than the executive, legislative and judicial bodies of organized government. To set this up as an expectation under full Communism flies in the face of all past human experience.
    Fallacy 24—This theory also assumes that under the suppression imposed by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat men will lose or completely smother their instinct of acquisition. Marx and Engels make it clear that they expected the Dictatorship to get people in the “habit” of not owning property or wanting to own it.
    But what happens when the stateless society is inaugurated and a whole new generation arrives on the scene which has no memory of the merciless suppression which gave their fathers the habit of observing the “simple, fundamental rules of everyday social life in common”? Suppose large numbers refuse to do the kind of work or the share of work expected of them, so that they are adjudged guilty of not “producing according to their ability”? Or suppose they demand from the classless, stateless society more than is believed to be their share?
    What will happen if they organize themselves, secretly equip themselves with weapons, and rise up unexpectedly to seize the wealth which the classless, stateless society refuses to give them? Will it not be necessary to immediately set up the Dictatorship of the Proletariat all over again to suppress this opposition? Perhaps the instinct of acquisition is going to be more difficult to suppress than Marx and Engels thought. In fact, with the knowledge which we already have concerning several thousand years of human behavior, is it likely that Communism will ever get past the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?
    Fallacy 25—Finally, full Communism promises that even in the absence of ordinary work incentives the classless, stateless society will produce greater quantities of goods than any existing system can produce today. Under this theory it is intended that Communist production will somehow reach a state of absolute saturation where all human needs will be satisfied. Supplies are to be stockpiled and distributed according to the needs of every person. Services are likewise to be made available at central depots and are to be available in such quantity that all elements of competition among consumers will be eliminated. Thus, Communism promises to do away with markets, money and prices.
    What happens, then, if the goal of absolute saturation is not reached? Would not the Dictatorship of the Proletariat have to be called into service once more to suppress dissatisfaction? A good example of the problem might be the case of automobiles. How many automobiles would have to be produced to reach absolute saturation for the wants (which must ultimately become synonymous with need if there is to be no state authority) of two billion people? Under capitalism, economic necessity makes a family feel satisfied with one or two cars. What would happen if this economic necessity were removed? Under full Communism a good worker is entitled to all the cars he wants. Unless he gets all he wants the ogre of selfishness will raise its ugly head. Time and again Communist writings promise sufficient production to eliminate the element of selfishness which leads to class struggle.
    And what happens when new models come out? Will society automatically scrap all cars every time a new model is developed? Under full Communism who would want an old car? This may seem somewhat preposterous but, as a matter of fact, it would be a most commonplace problem and would arise in connection with all types of production. Someone would have to decide who must keep their old cars for an extra year or two since otherwise every family would most certainly demand a new one. Each family might even demand several new ones.
    The problems under such a system obviously assume mountainous proportions and any hope of eliminating money, markets and prices fades into oblivion. Such a system also would require many times more government machinery than free-enterprise capitalism, and the prospect of producing goods and services in such quantities that the state might “wither away” defies both reason and experience.

Communism as a Negative Approach to Problem-Solving

    In concluding this discussion of the basic fallacies in Communism we should perhaps make a summary comment on the most significant fallacy of them all. This is the Communist doctrine that problems can be solved by eliminating the institution from which the problems emanate. Even Marx and Engels may have been unaware that this was what they were doing, but the student will note how completely this approach dominates every problem they undertook to solve.
    Take, for example, the problems of government. Marx and Engels would solve these problems by working for the day when they could eliminate government. Problems of morals would be solved by doing away with morals. Problems growing out of religion would be solved by doing away with religion. Problems of marriage, home and family would be eliminated by doing away with marriage, home and family.
    The problems arising out of property rights would be resolved by not allowing anyone to have any property rights. The problem of equalizing wages would be solved by abolishing wages. Problems connected with money, markets and prices would be solved by doing away with money, markets and prices. Problems of competition in production and distribution would be solved by forcibly prohibiting competition.
    Finally, they would solve all the problems of modern society by using revolution to destroy this society. It seems the phantom of Communist hope can only arise from the bowels of the earth through the ashes of all that now is. Communism must be built for one purpose—to destroy. Only after the great destruction did the Communist leaders dare to hope that they might offer to their disciples the possibility of freedom, equality and justice.
    It is this dismal and nebulous promise for the future which Communism offers the world today. Until such a day comes, the Communist leaders ask humanity to endure the conflagration of revolutionary violence, the suppression and liquidation of resistance groups, the expropriation of property, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat which they themselves describe as “based on force and unrestricted by any laws,” the suspension of all civil liberties—suppression of free press, free speech and assembly, the existence of slave labor camps, the constant observation of all citizens by secret police, the long periods of service in the military, the poverty of collective farming, the risk of being liquidated if discovered associating with deviationists, and finally, the tolerance of an economic order which promises little more than a life of bare subsistence for generations to come.
    More than forty years have come and gone since Communist leaders first seized a nation to demonstrate to a curious world what marvelous wonders might be wrought. From that one nation they have expanded their grip until one-third of the human race now bows to their iron-clad dictates. Those who have escaped their tyranny bear witness that Marxist Man has produced a political monstrosity containing the collected relics of practically every form of human degradation and torture invented by the mind of man since the dawn of history.
    While pretending to liberate mankind from the alleged oppression of capitalism Marxist Man has defied the warm, white light of Twentieth Century civilization to introduce slavery on a scale unprecedented in the history of the race. While claiming to foster the “rights of the common man” the Marxist has butchered his fellow citizens from Kulaks to aristocrats in numbers that baffle rational comprehension. And while describing himself as the epitome of the best in nature—the creature of science, the supreme intelligence of the universe—Homo-Marxian has exploited his cunning to compound crimes which scarcely would be duplicated by the most predatory tribes of pre-historic times.
    It is for this reason that discerning men have described Communism as reversing and negating history. It has turned man against himself. Instead of solving the many complex problems of modern life, Marxism’s negative approach has simply resurrected primitive problems which past generations of struggling humanity had already succeeding in solving.
    To more fully appreciate precisely what has been happening we shall now examine the circumstances which led to the launching of the first Communist controlled nation in the history of the world.

The Rise of the Revolutionary Movement in Russia

    The events described in this chapter are intimate facts in the minds of all well-informed Marxists. Communists often base their arguments on their interpretation of these events and therefore the student should find this historical background helpful.
    This chapter also includes the biographies of the principal Communist leaders—Nikolai (V.I.) Lenin, Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin.
    A review of the following questions will indicate some of the answers which this chapter is designed to provide.
    • Who launched Marxism in Russia in 1868? Why did Marx consider this man his “enemy”? After the assassination of Alexander II what did Marx say about the possibility of a Communist revolution in Russia?
    • What kind of environment produced Nikolai Lenin? Why was his brother hanged?
    • Who organized the Bolsheviks? What does the name mean? What did they call their enemies? Was this an accurate designation or a matter of strategy?
    • What was the background of Leon Trotsky? How did he get this name? How did he escape from Siberia? Why did he oppose Lenin in 1903?
    • Was the Russian Revolution of 1905 led by a few radicals or was it a general uprising of the whole people? Why did Lenin and the Bolsheviks oppose the “October Manifesto” which promised the people representative government?
    • From what kind of home did Joseph Stalin come? Why was he expelled from the seminary where he was being trained as a priest? What did the criminal activities of Joseph Stalin during 1907 reveal about his personality? How extensive were Stalin’s activities as a union organizer, propagandist and revolutionary leader during this period? What was his relationship to Lenin?
    • What brought Russia to the brink of another general uprising during the First World War? What was the Tsar’s attitude during this crisis?

Marxism Comes to Russia

    When White made this statement, the population of Russia was slightly over 70,000,000. Of these, 46,000,000 were in virtual captivity as serfs.
    It will be recalled that Marx and Engels had been aroused to wrathful vehemence when they saw conditions among the industrial workers of England, but the status of life among the English was far above that of the peasants in Russia. The Russian serfs were not only starved, exploited and pauperized, but they were subjected to an iron-clad system of feudal political suppression. Always there was the plague of the secret police, the threat of arrest and sentencing to forced labor camps in Siberia and the cruel indecencies imposed upon them by the Tsar’s everpresent military. A Russian serf seemed to enjoy no sacred immunities whatever, neither in his person, his possessions, his children, nor, sometimes, his wife. All were subject to the petty whims of grasping officials in the Tsar’s corrupt bureaucracy.
    Between 1861 and 1866, Tsar Alexander II sincerely attempted to do away with the institution of serfdom by approving several acts of emancipation. However, for all practical purposes, the impoverished lives of the peasants continued to be insecure, harsh and austere. Circumstances leading to a revolution were in the making.
    Marxism came to Russia in 1868 when Bakunin’s translation of Capital escaped the Tsar’s censors and passed among liberals and radicals like a choice morsel of spiritual meat. For Russia it meant the kindling of the bright red flame in the original Communist Manifesto: “Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains…. Working men of all countries, unite!”
    Russian revolutionary movements soon began to take shape and by 1880 Marxism could be described as definitely taking hold. The first significant violence came in 1881 when Tsar Alexander II fell dying beneath the shattering impact of a bomb which was hurled into the royal carriage by Ignatius Grinevitsky, a member of a revolutionary group called “The People’s Will.”
    The successful murder of the Tsar led many Marxists to feel that the hour for unrestricted revolution might be very near. Over in London, the aging Marx began receiving inquiries from his Russian disciples. They wanted to know whether or not it might be possible to have a revolution in Russia even though the Russian economy had never passed through the capitalistic development which Marx had always said was a prerequisite. Marx studied the problem diligently. Finally, he gave it as his opinion that Russia had “the rarest and most suitable opportunity ever offered to any country to avoid (skip) the phase of capitalistic development.” In other words, Marx was suggesting the possibility of an early revolution in Russia.
    This was a complete theoretical switch for Marx. He was also admitting the error of one of his earlier prophecies; namely, that the revolution would come first among highly developed capitalistic nations such as Germany and England. Among his friends he declared: “It is an irony of fate that the Russians, whom I have fought for twenty-five years, and not only in German (publications), but in French and English, have always been my patrons.”
    It was indeed ironical that the Russian Marxists had remained loyal to Marx and his theories in spite of the verbal and editorial abuse he had heaped upon them. This was never truer than in the case of Bakunin, the first Russian Marxist, who promoted the theories of Marx and Engels with such zeal, that they both feared he might take over the First International. They, therefore, marked him for political liquidation.
    Even at the end, however, Bakunin reaffirmed his faith in Marxism, and after referring to the “furious hatred” of Marx toward himself, he concluded: “This has given me an intense loathing of public life. I have bad enough of it, and after devoting all my days to the struggle, I am weary…. Let other and younger persons put their hands to the work. For my own part, I no longer feel strong enough…. I therefore, withdraw from the arena, and ask only one thing of my dear contemporaries—oblivion.”
    In 1876 Bakunin laid down the burden of his life, but the “younger persons” to whom he bequeathed Marxism and the Russian people’s revolution were already commencing to make their appearance among men.
    In 1870, Nikolai Lenin was born, and in the year 1879, there arrived on earth both Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky. Others would come, but these three were to be the principal leaders in carrying forward the traditions of Bakunin and at the same time doing for Marx what he was never able to do for himself; these three would convulse a great nation in a revolution and would serve as midwives at the birth of the world’s first Communist dictatorship.
Nikolai Lenin, first Communist dictator: “Marxists have never forgotten that violence will be an inevitable accompaniment of the collapse of capitalism… and of the birth of the socialist society.”

The Early Life of Nikolai (V.I.) Lenin

    Marx would hardly have guessed that the first Communist dictator would be a man like Lenin, who was born on April 22, 1870, in Simbirsk, on the Volga. His father was a Councilor of State with a hereditary title of nobility while his mother was a German of the Lutheran faith. Lenin had red hair, high cheek bones, and the slanting eyes of his Tartar ancestors from Astrakhan.
    Originally, Lenin was named Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov, but “Nikolai Lenin” is the revolutionary pseudonym under which he became famous. As a boy he had strict training under a father who was called a “liberal” even though he was a Councilor of State. His father was a man of humanitarian ideals who worked himself to death setting up four-hundred and fifty primary schools during a period of seventeen years. Lenin was fifteen when his father died, and soon afterwards an even greater tragedy struck the family—his older brother was hanged.
    This brother, named Alexander, was nearing twenty-one. He had lost his religious faith some time before and had become deeply impressed with the philosophy of materialism. He had also come to feel the need for direct and decisive action in getting social reforms in Russia.
    While attending the University at St. Petersburg (now Leningrad), Alexander agreed with several associates to construct a bomb which could be used to kill Tsar Alexander III. The bomb was built inside a bogus medical dictionary and consisted of dynamite and strychnine-treated bullets. The police discovered the assassination plot just before it was to have been executed and the entire group was summarily arrested. Trials and convictions soon followed, and in May, 1887, the St. Petersburg papers announced that Lenin’s older brother had gone to the gallows.
    When the excitement subsided, Lenin, who had just turned 17, went back to reading Marx and other revolutionary writers in deadly earnest. Like his brother, Lenin had lost his religious faith two or three years before and was becoming reconciled to the cynicism of the Marxist interpretation of life. Furthermore, the death of his brother accelerated his determination to become an active revolutionist as soon as possible.
    To give himself some kind of professional status, Lenin made an intensive study of law. Through the intercession of his mother, he was allowed to take his final examinations at the Univerity in St. Petersburg and came out first among one hundred and twenty-four students. Lenin then attempted to practice law, but for some reason lost nearly all his cases and, therefore, abandoned the law and never returned to it.
    In 1891-92 the Russian famine and cholera epidemic broke out. Lenin was living in a region where Tolstoy, the famous Russian writer and philanthropist, was trying to sustain the courage of the people by organizing hundreds of soup kitchens and distributing seed-grain and horses to the impoverished peasants. But Lenin would have none of it. He would not help set up soup-kitchens nor join a relief committee. Later he was accused of welcoming the famine as a means of accentuating the suffering of the people and firing up their revolutionary will to act. There is no doubt that during these years the Marxist program was ram-rodding Lenin’s thinking into that of an uncompromising revolutionist.
    Shortly after this, Lenin took up residence in St. Petersburg. He was now twenty-three and anxious to begin active revolutionary work. He therefore joined the “Fighting Union for the Liberation of the Working Class.” However, in 1895 Lenin learned that he had tuberculosis of the stomach. This made it necessary for him to go to Switzerland and undergo a cure at a special sanitarium. While in Western Europe, he made contact with George Plekhanov, the leader of the exiled Russian Marxists.
    Lenin spent long hours with Plekhanov and felt highly flattered that the big man among the exiled Russian radicals would share with a newcomer his plans for a violent revolution and the overthrow of the Tsar. Plekhanov was equally impressed with Lenin. He felt the heat of Lenin’s glowing hatred for everything tainted by the Tsar’s regime, and therefore decided that Lenin should return to Russia, rally the Marxists, and organize a national Communist political party patterned after the highly successful Social Democrats in Germany. Lenin was also asked to begin publishing a revolutionary periodical.
    This assignment was accepted by Lenin as a heroic mission for which fate had predestined him. Upon returning to Russia, he organized strikes, trained recruits, formulated political strategy and wrote inflammatory articles. But in the midst of this promising campaign, a police agent betrayed the group and Lenin found himself sentenced to exile in faraway Siberia. Lenin accepted this interruption of his revolutionary career with bitter resignation.
    Soon after his arrival in Siberia Lenin was joined by a Marxist girl, whom he had met in 1894, named Nadezhda Krupskaya. She was allowed to come, at Lenin’s request, on condition that she and Lenin legalize their union with a marriage ceremony. This violated their Marxist principle of “abolition of the family,” but they consented in order to remain together. Lenin now had a companion as dedicated to the revolution as himself. They had no children, and close associates stated that they intentionally planned against children because they both felt their missions in life would not permit them to be thus encumbered.
    Lenin spent his time in Siberia studying, writing reams of letters in secret ink, solidifying the program of the new Social-Democratic Party of Russia and completing his book called, Capitalism in Russia.
    When he was released in 1900, Lenin had become a cautious, calculating, full-fledged, conspiratorial revolutionist. He immediately headed for Munich, Germany, where he started printing a paper called The Spark, which could be smuggled into Russia. Thus began seventeen years of almost continuous exile in Western Europe for Lenin and his wife. Only on rare occasions did they secretly visit Russia. They lived modestly and traveled light. It was as though they were waiting for the voice of history to assign them to their revolutionary roles.

Origin of the Bolsheviks

    By 1903 Lenin and his wife had set up headquarters in London. They had the feeling they were carrying on where Marx had left off. Marx had been dead seventeen years and often they made pilgrimages to the cemetery where the grave of Marx is located.
    In July of that year a Russian-Social-Democratic congress convened in London. Forty-three delegates came from Russia as well as from various groups of Russian exiles in Western Europe. As chairman of the congress, Lenin started off with a moderate and impartial attitude, but as the discussions continued he was horrified to discover that the congress was moving toward pacifistic socialism rather than militant revolution. Lenin immediately gathered his friends and followers around him. He split the congress wide open on the issue of whether party membership should be limited to hard-core revolutionists (as advocated by Lenin) or broadened to include anyone who felt sympathy for the movement.
    In this dispute Lenin temporarily rallied around him a majority of the congress and thereafter used this as a basis for calling those who supported him “Bolsheviks” (which comes from a Russian word meaning “majority”), while those who opposed him were called “Mensheviks” (which is taken from the Russian word meaning “minority”). The propaganda value of a party title meaning “majority” will be quickly recognized. It was another illustration of Lenin’s absolute determination to exploit every situation so as to make it a tool to further his over-all political strategy.
    At this particular congress, however, Lenin’s victory was short-lived. Several groups combined their strength against him and before long he found himself representing the minority view on most matters. Nevertheless, Lenin continued calling his followers “the Bolsheviks” and any who opposed him “the Mensheviks.”

Background of Leon Trotsky

    One of those who now opposed Lenin was a young, twenty-three-year-old zealot named Leon Trotsky. At a future day Lenin and Trotsky would join forces, but at this congress of 1903 they stood in opposite camps. Let us pause in our narration to consider briefly the early life of Trotsky.
    In many respects the background of Lenin and Trotsky was similar. Both had come from substantial families, both had been well-educated, both had become disillusioned and had engaged in revolutionary activity and both had served sentences in Siberia.
    Leon Trotsky had been born to the name of Lev Bronstein. His father was a Kulak or rich peasant. Originally, Trotsky’s father had been a fugitive from the Tsar’s anti-Jewish campaign and had fled from city life to settle in a farming district near the Black Sea, where there was more religious tolerance. However, as the members of the family prospered, they gradually dropped the local synagogue as well as the observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Finally, the father came out openly in favor of atheism.
    When Trotsky went away to school, he carried along with him these sympathies for materialism which he had gained from his father. These attitudes soon began to bear fruit. Toward the completion of his school, Trotsky was not only exhibiting the cynicism of a confirmed materialist, but he was also showing strong signs of becoming a political radical. Although this tendency was most displeasing to Trotsky’s father, nothing would dissuade him. Boisterous scenes erupted between the two whenever Trotsky went home for vacations and after a few years Trotsky was completely alienated from his family.
    Under these circumstances it was not at all difficult for Trotsky to find a place in his mind for Marxism when it was finally presented to him. His conversion was further facilitated by the fact that he was taught Marxism by an attractive young woman six years his senior whom he later married. Her name was Alexandra Lvovna.
    Trotsky was only nineteen when he and Alexandra decided to help organize the South Russian Workers’ Union. Among other things, Trotsky was assigned the task of printing an illegal paper. As might have been expected, this soon led to his arrest. Trotsky spent the next three months in solitary confinement and after a series of assignments to various prisons; he ended up in Siberia where he was joined eventually by Alexandra. They were both sentenced to serve four years in a cold, barren region where there were few settlements. Two children were born to them during this exile.
    Trotsky escaped in 1902 by burying himself in a peasant’s load of hay. He reached the Siberian railroad and then used a fake identification paper to pass himself off as “Trotsky”—the name of his late jailer! He used this name from then on. With the help of several Marxist comrades, he made his way to London and arrived there in time to participate in the Social-Democratic Congress which we have already mentioned. Sometime later he was joined by his wife and children.
    Upon their first meeting Lenin and Trotsky struck it off well. Lenin described Trotsky as a revolutionist of “rare abilities.” Trotsky reciprocated by suggesting that Lenin be made the chairman of the congress. During the congress, however, Trotsky saw enough of Lenin to make him apprehensive about the cold, blue-steel razor edge of Lenin’s mind. He was shocked by the reckless indifference Lenin exhibited as he lopped off some of the oldest and most respected members of the party when they opposed his views. (Trotsky’s gentle concern for the feelings of fellow comrades in 1903 stands in sharp contrast to his position in 1917-1922 when he personally supervised the ruthless liquidation of many hundreds of comrades whom he suspected of deviating from established party policy.)
    As it turned out, Trotsky’s temporary opposition to Lenin in 1903 did not hurt his revolutionary career. In the years immediately following, Trotsky developed into a brilliant writer and public speaker and he became a well-known personality in Western Europe long before Lenin. He is described as a handsome, arrogant, anti-social intellectual who sometimes offended his fellow-Marxists because of his flare for elegant clothes. The down-sweep of his nose and moustache won for him the title of “The Young Eagle.”
    Now let us return to the swift course of events in the history of the Russian revolutionary movement.

The Russian Revolution of 1905

    By 1903 the political situation in Russia had become explosive, Tsar Nicholas II did not realize it, but he was to be the last of the Tsars. As an administrator, he had turned out to be amazingly weak. When he was a young man he had been very pleasant and friendly, and Russian liberals had hoped that after he ascended the throne he would adopt the badly needed reforms which his country required in order to take its place among the progressive nations of the world. But in this they were disappointed. Nicholas II perpetuated the imperialistic policies of his father, Alexander III, and enforced the stringent domestic policies of his grandfather who was assassinated. In fact, to satisfy his own expansive ambitions, Nicholas II plunged Russia into a senseless war with Japan in 1903. Almost immediately he found the Russian forces suffering humiliating defeat.
    This Russo-Japanese War lasted a little over two years and as it neared its mortifying conclusion, the economic and political pressure on the Russian people split the seams of the Empire asunder. Government officials were assassinated, mass demonstrations were held, and a general strike was called which eventually idled more than 2,500,000 workers. The Tsar used every form of reprisal available to suppress the uprising, but mass arrests, mass imprisonment, and mass executions failed to stem the tide. The entire population was up in arms; bankers, peasants, professors, and illiterates walked side by side in the demonstration parades.
    A typical example of the Tsar’s clumsy maneuvering which brought on the revolution was the Winter Palace Massacre. This event occurred on Sunday, January 22, 1905, when a priest named Father George Gapon led a parade of several thousand unarmed workers to the front of the Winter Palace to present a peaceful petition for the amelioration of labor conditions. As the marchers drew near they could be seen carrying large portraits of Nicholas II which they waved back and forth while lustily singing “God Save the Tsar.” It was a strange scene. The obvious poverty of the workers stood out in vivid contrast to the magnificent splendor of the Tsar’s Winter Palace, which was a large and extravagant structure capable of housing more than 6,500 guests in its richly decorated apartments.
    But the Tsar did not come out to welcome them. Instead the marchers found the palace completely surrounded by massed troops. At first the workers were apprehensive about the situation, but they felt reassured when there was no command to disperse. Then suddenly they heard the hoarse shout of a staccato military command. Immediately the Tsar’s troops opened direct fire on the crowd. The withering volley leveled the front ranks to the ground while the remaining marchers trampled one another as they fled in terror trying to escape. The troops continued firing until the crowd completely dispersed. Approximately 500 were killed outright and 3,000 were wounded. This became notorious in Russian history as “Bloody Sunday.”
    News of this atrocity spread like a tidal wave across the steppes and plains of Russia. Already the people were bristling with resentment against the burden of the Russo-Japanese War, and this new outrage was sufficient to trigger a universal revolt. At first a few of the people tried to use violence, but generally speaking, the principal method of retaliation was one which paralyzed the Tsar’s wartime economy—the people stopped working. In a matter of months the entire economic machinery of Russia came to a standstill. Factories were closed, stores were empty, newspapers were not printed, dry-goods and fuel were not moved and newly harvested crops were left rotting on the loading docks. For the first time in his career, Tsar Nicholas II was deeply frightened. He abandoned the Russo-Japanese War and agreed to hear the people’s demands.
    These consisted of four things:
    1. Protection of the individual, allowing freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to form unions.
    2. The right of the people of all classes to vote for the Duma (the people’s assembly.)
    3. The automatic repeal of any law enacted by the Tsar without the consent of the people’s assembly.
    4. The right of the people’s assembly to pass on the legality of any decrees issued by the Tsar.
    These demands were set in a document called “The October Manifesto.” This Manifesto clearly illustrates that the masses of the people had no intention of destroying the Tsar, but merely wanted to set up a limited monarchy similar to England. Such a compromise infuriated the Marxists. They wanted the revolution continued until the Tsar was forced to surrender unconditionally and abdicate. Not until then could they set up a Communist dictatorship.
    Leon Trotsky, who had hastened to Russia when the uprising started, stood before a crowd of people who were celebrating the Tsar’s acceptance of the Manifesto and tore up a copy of it, declaring that the Manifesto was a betrayal of the revolution. He immediately joined with other Marxists in setting up political machinery to fan the flame of renewed revolutionary activity. This was done primarily by organizing a great many soviets (workers’ councils in the various labor unions). Lenin arrived belatedly in November, 1905, and agreed to join with Trotsky for an “a second revolution.” After sixty days, however, the Marxist movement collapsed. Trotsky was caught and arrested while Lenin fled in the night to safer regions.
    Thus ended fourteen months of desperate revolt against the Tsar; the first twelve belonged to the whole people, the last two to the Marxists. Altogether, the troops throughout the Empire had been called out more than 2,500 different times. In these battles between the people and the troops, fourteen thousand had been killed, approximately one thousand had been executed, twenty thousand had been wounded or injured, and seventy thousand had been arrested.
    Trotsky’s leadership in the final stages of the revolution won him a stiff sentence from the Tsar’s court. He was convicted of revolutionary violence and exiled to Siberia for an indefinite period. But Trotsky never reached Siberia. He made a daring escape in midwinter and, after traveling four hundred and thirty miles in a deer-sleigh, crossed the Ural Mountains on horseback and then escaped to Finland where he joined Lenin and several other Marxists.
    It was while Trotsky was staying in Finland that he carefully worked out his theory of “Perpetual Revolution.” This theory advocated a continuous Communist attack on all existing governments until they were overthrown and the dictatorship of the proletariat established. This brought Trotsky into nearly perfect focus with Lenin. Perhaps, without quite realizing it, he had talked himself into becoming a full-fledged Bolshevik.
    At this particular time, the Bolshevik movement was at its lowest ebb. The Bolshevik leaders had failed in their promises to force the Tsar to abdicate, and their continuation of the revolution after the October Manifesto had embittered the Tsar to the point where he had practically repudiated the Manifesto. He allowed the people to elect a Duma (people’s assembly) but he managed to strip it of all its real powers. The people knew they were being defrauded, but there was no way to enforce the Manifesto without fomenting another revolution, and at the moment this seemed unlikely. Individual groups did continue agitating against the Tsar and his ministers, but most of these, like the Bolshevik leaders, were forced to flee to Western Europe for safety.
    To rejuvenate the dwindling influence of the Bolshevik party, Lenin began holding a series of meetings. At one of these conclaves, a new revolutionary figure appeared on the scene. It was Joseph Stalin. Stalin came as an obscure delegate from a small Bolshevik group in Transcaucasia. Lenin immediately recognized him as a true revolutionary member of the peasant class—a rough, unrelenting, two-listed man of ruthless action. Lenin had a place for such a personality and therefore enlisted Stalin in his service.
    This brings us to the third important personality who figured prominently in the revolutionary movement in Russia.
Joseph Stalin, as a young Bolshevik: “To choose one’s victim, to prepare one’s plans minutely, to stake an implacable vengeance, and then go to bed… there is nothing sweeter in the world.”

Background of Joseph Stalin

    Joseph Stalin was originally named Djugashvili. He was born December 21, 1879, in the little town of Gori near the border of Turkey. Today the humble wooden house which first sheltered him has been made into a national monument with a marble canopy covering it.
    Stalin’s father was a shoemaker with an addiction for alcohol which eventually cost him his life. Stalin was only eleven years old when his father died. Thereafter, Stalin’s mother washed, scrubbed, sewed, and baked to earn enough money to put Stalin through school. Since his mother wanted him to be a priest, he was enrolled in the nearby theological seminary at Tiflis.
    As he learned his way around, Stalin discovered that the seminary was honeycombed with secret societies. Many of them were fostering the atheistic writings of Feuerbach and Bauer and the revolutionary writings of Marx and Engels. Before long Stalin convinced himself that he had a preference for revolution rather than religion and he therefore became vigorously active in the clandestine organizations which existed among the students of the seminary. He continued these activities for nearly three years, but he was finally exposed in May, 1899, and was expelled from the seminary for “lack of religious vocation.”
    Once he joined the outside world, Stalin spent his full time as a professional Marxist revolutionary. He organized strikes, conducted illegal May Day festivities, and finally fled to Batumi where he became the principal labor agitator for the Social-Democratic party. Eventually he was arrested and after remaining in prison until 1903, he was sentenced to three years of exile in Siberia.
    He was still in Siberia when he heard about the split between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Stalin almost instinctively felt himself to be a hard-core Bolshevik and after successfully escaping from Siberia the following year, he returned to Tiflis and became the leader of the Transcaucasian Bolsheviks. During the Revolution of 1905 he led an abortive revolution in his home province of Georgia and then departed immediately for Finland to attend a Bolshevik conference and make contact with Lenin.
    From then on Stalin remained the aide-de-camp to Lenin whom he deeply admired. It was not long before his zeal for the Communist cause began to forcefully manifest itself.

Stalin Engages in Criminal Activities

    In the summer of 1907 Joseph Stalin held a secret meeting with Lenin in Berlin. Afterwards he returned to Tiflis and organized a holdup. It was no mere Robin Hood adventure to steal money from the rich, but a major gangster operation with complete disregard for the lives of men, women, and children in Stalin’s own home-town.
    A powerful bomb was thrown in front of a convoy carrying money from the post office to the Tiflis Branch of the State Bank. The bomb destroyed the horses pulling the carriage, killed several by-standers, and wounded more than fifty children and adults. In the hysteria which followed, the moneybags containing 341,000 rubles (about $170,000) were snatched from the carriage by the bomb-throwers and hurriedly carried away.
    The crime reflected such complete disregard for human life that authorities both inside and outside of Russia attempted to run down every possible clue which would disclose the identities of the criminals. Finally, the money was found in the possession of a close associate of Stalin named Maxim Litvinov (the man Stalin later sent to the United States in 1933 to seek U.S. recognition for Soviet Russia). Litvinov and a companion were arrested in Paris by the French authorities when they tried to change the rubles into francs before sending the money on to Lenin. Details of the crime were finally unraveled by the authorities, and the names of original perpetrators were disclosed. Nevertheless, Stalin succeeded in remaining at large for several more years and continued his revolutionary activities.

Stalin as a Union Organizer, Writer and Bolshevik Leader

    The years 1907-1913 were pick-and-shovel years for Joseph Stalin. No one could accuse him of being merely an “intellectual Communist” as they sometimes described Lenin. Stalin learned every trick of propaganda, pressure politics, mass communications, strike techniques and labor agitation. Some of his most significant experiences occurred in the highly active industrial district at Baku. There he was assigned to organize tens of thousands of oil well and refinery workers. To do this he set up a triple-system of legal, semi-legal, and totally illegal organizations. He imposed his leadership so completely on the workers in this large industrial center that he was able to organize a powerful industrial soviet (workers’ council) dominated from top to bottom by his own loyal Bolshevik colleagues.
    Stalin was never very effective as a speaker because of his strong Georgian accent, but between 1907 and 1913, he became proficient as a revolutionary writer. For awhile he edited a Socialist newspaper in Tiflis called Dio (Time) in which he aroused astonishment even among Bolsheviks because of his bitterness in attacking the Mensheviks. In 1910 he went to St. Petersburg (now Leningrad) and wrote for the Social Democrat, the Zvezda (Star), and later for Pravda (Truth). It was in these periodicals that Joseph Djugashvili first became known by his pen name, “Man of Steel,” or Stalin.
    In 1912 Stalin received special recognition when Lenin broke away completely from the Social Democrats and set up an independent Bolshevik Party. In the new organization Lenin appointed Stalin to the Central Committee.
    The very next year, however, Stalin’s career was interrupted when he was arrested and sent to Siberia. For Stalin it was an old story. Since 1903 he had been arrested eight times, exiled seven times, and escaped six times. But there was to be no escape on this latest arrest. He was sent to one of the most remote regions of Siberia.
    With the arrival of World War I, Stalin had no particular desire to escape. He told his friends he would relax and enjoy his “vacation” in Siberia since escape might result in his being drafted into the armed services. He wanted no part of military service.

The Role of Russia in World War I

    It will be recalled that the year 1914 found all the major nations of Europe flexing their military muscles. It was inevitable that the slightest miscalculation in diplomatic relations might turn loose a churning volcano of human destruction. The spark in the powder keg was the assassination of the heir to the Austria-Hungarian throne by a member of a Serbian secret society. This occurred June 28, 1914.
    Austria-Hungary had been looking for an excuse to take over Serbia, and therefore her troops began marching in. This angered the Tsar because Serbia was on his own calendar of conquest so he declared war on Austria-Hungary. Germany came to the defense of Austria-Hungary and declared war on Russia. At the time France was an ally of Russia, so Germany used this as an excuse to declare war on France. This brought England into the War as an ally of France. Thus the machine of war began to roll.
    From the point of view of the Russian Tsar, the First World War did not come as any particular surprise. For years he had been busily preparing for it by building a powerful military machine. Nevertheless, the Russian people were not psychologically prepared for war.
    For nearly a decade there had been a growing tension between the people and the Tsar because he had failed to provide them with the constitutional government which he had promised in the October Manifesto of 1905. Of course, when the people were threatened by attack at the outbreak of World War I, they instinctively banded together in the common defense, and Tsar Nicholas promptly took this as an omen that they would support him loyally throughout the conflict.
    But within a few months the strain of war began to tell. By 1915 there were widespread complaints, and by 1916 the Tsar’s war machine was sputtering and jerking as it bordered on collapse. In three years Russia had mobilized more than 13,000,000 fighting men, but of these approximately 2,000,000 were killed, approximately 4,000,000 were wounded, and 2,500,000 were taken prisoners. For 24 months the news from the front was consistently bad. Russian armies were pushed out of Galicia, Russian Poland, and part of Lithuania, Serbia and the Dardanelles.
    When the Ottoman Empire entered the war it cut Russian foreign trade to a trickle and thereby isolated Russia from the arms and munitions of her allies. Replacement troops sent to the front were often so ill-equipped that some of them had to pick up their rifles from dead soldiers along the way. Lack of ammunition often forced commanding officers to restrict the infantry to a daily ration of no more than four shells per gun.
    At this juncture the Tsar was warned by the British Ambassador that the whole Eastern Front might collapse if things did not improve. Desertions from the Russian Army] had reached scandalous proportions and the workers and peasants were threatening revolt. Food shortages were growing because the government was buying grain with paper money which was practically worthless. In the cities the cost of living had tripled while wages had risen only slightly.
    But the Tsar could not see any reason for alarm. He had ridden out the revolt of 1905; he intended to do the same now. To demonstrate his complete confidence in the situation, he announced that he would go to the front to cheer the troops with his presence.
    What he seemed to forget was the fact that conditions among the people were almost identical with those which precipitated the revolution of 1905. It was far too late to cheer the troops with the Tsar’s presence Already the reign of the Tsar was doomed. Though he did not know it, Nicholas II was going to lose the throne in a matter of months, and shortly thereafter, his life.

How Russia Became a Communist World Power

    The history of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the twenty years that followed might well be called the modern New Testament of Marxism. The Communists present it as their historic proof that the theories of Marx can be carried out successfully. Interestingly enough, however, some of the strongest proof against Communism is also revealed in this same epic of history. All of the pertinent facts have been brought together in this chapter so that the student might judge for himself.
    A review of the following questions may help to identify some of the problems which frequently arise when this period history is discussed:
    • Who forced the Tsar to abdicate? Where were the Communist leaders at the time? In what way was the Russian revolution of March, 1917, identical with the Russian revolution of 1905? How did Lenin get back into Russia? Why did the German officers want to help him?
    • When the national elections were held on November 25, 1917, what percentage of the people voted against Lenin’s regime?
    • What was Lenin’s motive in taking Russia out of World War I? Why the treaty he signed with the Germans was called “a great catastrophe for Russia”?
    • What happened when Lenin applied the theories of Marx to the Russian economy? Why did Lenin order the execution of the Tsar and his family?
    • What were the circumstances which forced Lenin to abandon many of Marx’s favorite theories?
    • Why did Lenin write from his deathbed that he hoped Joseph Stalin would never be allowed to seize power? What was the purpose of Stalin’s first Five-Year Plan?
    • Why did the Communist Party in Russia try to depose Stalin in December 1932? What saved Stalin?
    • Why did Stalin execute nearly all the leaders of the Communist Party? By 1938, what did Stalin say he was ready to do?
Tsar Nicholas II and his family in their days of power. At the feet of the empress is the Tsarevitch. Back row: Grand Duchesses Anastasia, Titiana and Olga; Marie is at her father’s left.

The Russian Revolution of March 1917

    It was March 8, 1917, when the swelling spirit of revolution in Russia burst its banks and sent a flood of political indignation streaming after the Tsar and his regime. There was comparatively little violence. The feeling of revolt was so universal that as soon as the signal was given, a quarter of a million demonstrators appeared in the streets of the capital. When the masses of demonstrators had taken over the capital, the revolution automatically swept across the Empire.
    This revolution was of vast significance to the entire world. It will be recalled that the spring of 1917 was a highly critical stage of World War I. The United States was just getting into the fight, and France, Britain and Italy were almost exhausted. Because the Western Front was barely holding together against the onslaught of Germany and her Central Powers, the collapse of the Eastern Front with its war machine of several million Russians could have meant unequivocal disaster for the Allies.
    The Russian revolution also held great significance for Germany. The Kaiser knew that if Russia withdrew from the war the large German forces in the East could be transferred to the West. This would have given him a vastly superior force capable of smashing all resistance.
    But the people behind the Russian revolution never intended to allow the Eastern Front to collapse. Their revolt against the Tsar was to save Russia, not destroy her. As soon as the Provisional Government had been set up, it announced an all-out program to create a democratic, constitutional form of government and to press for vigorous continuation of the war. This restored hope to the western Allies. The United States, England, France and Italy immediately recognized the new regime and the hearts of free people everywhere went out to the new star of freedom which seemed to be rising over the jubilant people of Russia.
    As for the Tsar, it was difficult for him to realize just what had happened. At the beginning of the revolution, Nicholas II categorically refused to admit that his government had disintegrated. When the demonstrations first began he dissolved the Duma (the people’s assembly) and ordered the troops to disperse the crowds. Within a week, however, his own ministers were urging him to abdicate since his cause was hopeless.
    Not until his generals also urged abdication did he finally capitulate. He and his family were then placed under house arrest at the imperial palace outside of Petrograd. Although the people had suffered greatly under his rule, it was not the intention of the Provisional Government to kill the Tsar but to send him and his family to England as soon as war conditions would permit.
    With the Tsar taken care of, the Provisional Government then launched into the double task of initiating widespread domestic reforms and, at the same time, reassembling Russia’s military strength. At the front the troops began responding by exhibiting a new fighting spirit, and within a month remarkable progress was made in providing domestic reforms on the home front. For the first time in their history, the Russian people had the prospect of a liberal democratic regime to govern them. Prince Lvov, who had joined the people’s revolt, confidently declared: “We should consider ourselves the happiest of men, for our generation finds itself in the happiest period of Russian History.”

The Destruction of Russia’s Plans for a Democracy

    The most significant thing about the abdication of the Tsar and the setting up of the people’s Provisional Government in Russia is the simple historical fact that the Bolsheviks, or Communists, had practically nothing to do with it! This revolution had been initiated by the same kind of people as those who started the revolt against the Tsar in 1905. They represented Russia’s best people—the liberal aristocrats, the intellectuals, the businessmen, the millions of peasants and the millions of workers. But the Bolshevik leaders were nowhere in sight. Lenin was in exile in Switzerland, Trotsky was in exile in New York and Joseph Stalin was in prison in Siberia. Unfortunately for their future propaganda, the Bolsheviks would never be able to take credit for the revolution Of March, 1917, which brought about the overthrow of the Tsar.
    It was the generosity of the Provisional Government which permitted the Bolshevik leaders to return. All political prisoners were released from Siberia and all political exiles abroad were invited to come home. When the British heard that Lenin was being allowed to return, they warned their Russian ally that this was a serious mistake. As a matter of fact, the only way Lenin was able to get back into Russia was through the assistance of German agents. The reason for this German cooperation is readily apparent.
    The Germans had become alarmed at the prospect of a comeback among the Russian people, and they were looking about for some opportunity to create a spirit of confusion and disunity within Russia’s Provisional Government. A brief conversation with Lenin in Switzerland convinced them that he was the man to accomplish it. They, therefore, transported Lenin and his wife and a number of Russian exiles across Germany into Sweden. It was simple for Lenin to proceed immediately to the Russian capital.
    When Lenin arrived in Petrograd (the new name for St. Petersburg, later changed to Leningrad), he was welcomed by the crowds of people as a sympathetic colleague of the revolution. A military escort helped him to the roof of an armored car where the vast throng waited expectantly for his commendation of their success. But when Lenin’s lip-clipped words began to stream forth, they were far from commendatory. His inflammatory declamation literally amounted to a new declaration of war!
    He bitterly denounced the efforts of the Provisional Government to set up a republic. He demanded a Communist dictatorship of the proletariat and called for a struggle to take over the landed estates and immediately subject the Russian people to the economic discipline of full socialism. He denounced all further efforts to continue the war and said an immediate peace with Germany should be negotiated. (He was later accused of trying to take Russia out of the war to repay his obligation to the Germans.)
    It was only a matter of weeks until all Russia began hearing the propaganda of the Bolshevik leaders as they echoed the program which Lenin had laid down in his Petrograd speech. Stalin, who was back from Siberia, wrote articles in the new Communist paper urging counterrevolution. Trotsky, who had returned from New York, used his brilliant oratory to incite the labor unions and the military forces to overthrow the Provisional Government. “Peace, Land and Bread,” was the Bolshevik slogan. Under the circumstances, this propaganda was bound to have some appeal.
A successful attempt by the Russian Provisional Government to put down a Communist uprising in Petrograd during July, 1917. As a result of this Communist defeat, Lenin fled to save his life.
    The Provisional Government tried to warn the people against the tempting promises of the Bolsheviks, but the government was beginning to lose prestige because the masses had been demanding reforms faster than the new regime could provide them. This tended to discredit the warning voices of government leaders. In fact, during July, 1917, the outbreaks among the peasants, workers and troops were again beginning to crop out and Lenin concluded that the time to strike was ripe. He assumed that since the Russian Army was desperately involved in trying to hold back the German forces at the front it would not be difficult to overcome the home guard of old men and young boys. However, in this he miscalculated. When Lenin struck out with his Bolshevik forces, the Provisional Government not only suppressed the uprising, but forced Lenin to flee to Finland to save his life.
    From then on Lenin proceeded more cautiously. He allowed his subordinates to organize fresh revolutionary forces while he directed the work from abroad. One of these subordinates was Trotsky who had now openly identified himself with the Bolsheviks and was rapidly rising to the number two position. He was assigned the task of organizing the “Red Guard” of armed insurrectionists among the labor unions, the Army, the Navy and the peasants.
    By early October, Lenin felt it was safe to return to Russia and on November 7, he made the fateful decision to commence an all-out revolution against the Provisional Government. The revolution began when Lenin ordered Trotsky to have the Red Guard open fire on the Winter Palace and try to seize all other strongholds of the government. Under fierce attack, these centers soon surrendered, and nearly all the officials of the Provisional Government were captured. This was the beginning of what Communist writers call “the ten days that shook the world.”
First Russian photo of the Bolshevik revolution to reach the United States. This shows victorious Communist leaders addressing a large crowd in Moscow after seizure of power.
    Before many weeks the use of force and violence permitted the Bolsheviks to seize power in nearly all important cities. The regular army could not come to the assistance of the Provisional Government and consequently the people found themselves attacked by the Bolshevik anarchists at a time when they had practically no forces whatever with which to resist. By the middle of December the Bolsheviks were putting down the last remnants of stubborn resistance, although long before this the masses of the people knew that their dreams for a democracy were dead.

Russia Repudiates Communism at the Polls

    Before the Provisional Government had been overthrown it had set November 25 as the date for a national election in order to create a people’s assembly or congress. The Bolsheviks themselves had made the most noise in demanding this election and therefore Lenin did not dare postpone it even though it came while he was still consolidating his power. The election was held as scheduled.
    The results were catastrophic insofar as Lenin’s dream of popular backing was concerned. Over 75 percent of the population voted against him. Obviously this meant that the people’s elected representatives would be opposed to the Bolshevik regime; therefore when these representatives convened on January 18, 1918, Lenin had already decided what to do.
    He demanded that the people’s congress turn over all their legislative functions to the Bolshevik-controlled “Congress of the Soviets” and then vote to dissolve themselves. This, of course, was so illegal and ridiculous, that they would not hear of it. Lenin therefore invoked his “means of last resort”—force. Early the next morning, armed guards entered the meeting hall and ordered the delegates to adjourn. As the delegates looked at the bristling rifles, they knew there was no alternative. Reluctantly, they left.
    This illegal act sounded the death knell for democracy in Russia. Nevertheless, Lenin knew this act of ruthless expediency had given his enemies potent propaganda to discredit him. It was resolved that all future coups by Red forces would provide the illusion of being achieved through normal democratic processes. For the moment, however, the damage was done. The Communists had overthrown the nearest thing to representative government the Russians had ever known. Now the people would learn something about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Lenin Takes Russia Out of the War

    It was one of Lenin’s first ambitions to wipe out the Eastern Front and take Russia out of the war. In addition to fulfilling any promises he might have made to the Germans, Lenin had a highly important reason of his own for this action. He believed that the strain of the war would make it possible to set off a series of Communist revolutions in every major capitalist nation. Therefore, he wanted to disentangle Russia from the conflict in order to get her prepared for her role as the “Motherland of Communism.” This would give him a chance to consolidate his power in Russia and then to supervise the revolutions in the war-weary capitalist nations so as to bring the whole world under the dictatorship of the proletariat within a very short time.
    However, getting Russia out of the war did not prove to be an easy task. For months the Russian armies had been retreating in the face of superior military forces. Consequently, when Lenin finally obtained an armistice with the Central Powers and offered to negotiate a peaceful settlement, they treated him as the defeated leader of a conquered nation. The demands which Germany made upon Russia were outrageous. Lenin hesitated. To further persuade him, the Germans marched even deeper into Russian territory, and were soon threatening the very precincts of Petrograd. Lenin hurriedly moved his government to Moscow and then did something which was deeply humiliating to a Communist revolutionary; he appealed to Russia’s old capitalist allies—France, England and the United States—for help.
    He was further humiliated when these countries completely ignored him. Lenin had destroyed the balance of the Allied defense when he pulled the Russian armies out of the conflict. Now these nations were so busy preparing to defend themselves against the all-out German offensive being planned for the spring that they had neither the desire nor the means to help Lenin out of his self-inflicted predicament.
    Like the shrewd political gambler that he was, Lenin now weighed his chances for survival in the balance and decided to force his own party to support him in accepting the indecent demands of the Central Powers. Even the iron-disciplined members of the ruling committee of the Bolshevik Party balked at Lenin’s proposal, but, nevertheless, he finally forced it through with a vote of seven to four.
    As a result, a settlement was signed between Russia and the Central Powers on March 3, 1918, which has become known as the notorious treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
    In it, Lenin accepted terms which took from the Russian Empire 62,000,000 people, 1,267,000 square miles of her arable lands, 26 percent of her railroads, 33 percent of her factories, 75 percent of her coal mines and 75 percent of her iron mines. In addition to this, Lenin promised that Russia would pay the Central Powers 1 ½ billion dollars in indemnities!
    Such was to be the end of a war that had cost the Russian people 8 ½ million casualties.

The First Attempt to Communize Russia

    With Russia out of the war, Lenin now felt sufficient confidence to subordinate the whole Russian economy to the theories of Communism. He confiscated all industry from private owners and set it up under government operation. He seized all land which belonged to the aristocracy, the Tsar and the church. He also seized all the livestock and implements which ordinarily served this land. He then abolished wages and replaced them with direct payment “in kind.” This saddled Russia with a sluggish and primitive barter system. He ordered all domestic goods to be rationed among the people according to their class. For example, a worker or soldier was allocated thirty-five pounds of bread, while a nonworker, such as a manager, received only twelve. Lenin also made all labor subject to mobilization. People with technical skills could be compelled to accept any work assigned to them. The selling of retail goods was taken over by the government.
    As for the peasants, Lenin distributed the confiscated land to them, but required them to work the land without hiring any help and without selling any of the produce. It was all to go to the government. Furthermore, the land could not be sold, leased nor mortgaged.
    In March, 1918, the Bolsheviks changed their name to the “Russian Communist Party.”
    But from the very beginning the Russian people did not take well to the new order. Without any personal incentive among the workers, production on the farm and in the factory dwindled to a trickle. The factories were soon down to 13 percent of what they had been producing before the war started, and the farmers cut their production in half. Black markets began to flourish. Workers often stole goods from the factories to exchange for food which the peasants secretly withheld from the government. Before long, the peasants were holding back more than one-third of their crops.
    As might have been expected, this decomposition of the Russian economy brought down upon the heads of the people all the wrath and frustration of the Bolshevik leaders. Every terror method known was used to force the people to produce. This led to retaliation.
Bolshevik atrocities. Fifty bodies of community leaders of Wesenburg are exhumed from a lake after being shot and mutilated in reprisal for the death of two Communists.
White Russians retaliate by hanging suspected Bolsheviks. During the Civil War several million lost their lives.
Bolsheviks use a confiscated church for a wheat granary. This was part of the Red campaign to discourage religious worship.
    During the summer of 1918, violent civil war broke out as the “White Guard” vowed they would overthrow the Reds and free the Russian people. The western Allied Nations, though hard-pressed themselves, were sympathetic to this movement and sent supplies, equipment and even what troops they could spare to help release the Russian people from the Bolshevik grip.
Trotsky addresses a contingent of the Red Army which he ultimately built up to a force of five million men.
    Lenin knew this was a crisis of the highest order. He therefore decided to strike back in three different directions simultaneously. To resist organized military groups, he authorized Trotsky to forcibly mobilize a Red Army which ultimately totaled five million. To resist the people’s anti-Bolshevik sentiment and refusal to work, he organized the secret police or Cheka. This body could investigate arrest, adjudicate and execute suspected persons. Authorities state that during the civil war, literally tens of thousands went down before its firing squads. Finally, Lenin struck out at the Tsar. To prevent any possibility of a new monarchial party being developed, he had the Tsar, the Empress, their children and all their retainers shot to death at Yekaterinburg and their bodies completely destroyed. This mass assassination occurred July 16, 1918.
    Six weeks later the scalding vengeance of the White Russians nearly cost Lenin his life. The Bolshevik aristocracy was caught under vulnerable circumstances and a volley of rifle fire assassinated the Cheka chief and seriously wounded Lenin. To avenge itself, the Cheka summarily executed 500 persons.
    When the end of World War I came on November 11, 1918, it had little effect on the situation in Russia. The civil war continued with even greater violence, and the Bolsheviks redoubled their efforts to communize Russia. Lenin continued to set up Soviets or workers’ councils, in every part of the empire, and these Soviets in turn sent delegates to the supreme Soviet at the capital. Through the channels of this Bolshevik-dominated labor-union empire, Lenin carried out his policies. Behind the Soviets stood the enforcing power of the Red Army, and the terror of the Cheka secret police.
    In spite of all these coercive methods, however, Lenin eventually discovered he was fighting a losing battle. For a while he took courage from the fact that United States, England, France and Japan began withdrawing their troops and supplies under the League of Nations policy of “self-determination for all peoples,” but the ferocious fighting of the White Russians continued.
    The breaking point for Lenin came in 1921–22 when the economic inefficiency of the Bolshevik regime was compounded by a disastrous famine. There was a complete crop failure along the Volga—the bread basket of Russia. Nikolaus Basaeches wrote: “No one who was ever in that famine area, no one who saw those starving and brutalized people, will ever forget the spectacle. Cannibalism was common. The despairing people crept about, emaciated, like brown mummies…. When those hordes fell upon an unprepared village, they were apt to massacre every living person.”
    Packs of wild, orphaned children roamed like hungry wolves through cities and country sides. It is estimated that during the year 1922, over 33 million Russians were starving, and 5 million died. The people of the United States were so shocked by this almost inconceivable amount of human suffering that they raised funds for the Hoover Commission to feed over 10 million Russians during 1922.

The End of a Communist Dream

    Even before this disaster, however, Lenin had forced himself to admit that he had assigned his country an impossible task. His Bolshevik revolution had not brought peace to Russia, but a terrible civil war in which 28 million Russians had lost their lives. The principles of socialism which Lenin had forced upon the people had not brought increased production as Marx had promised, but had reduced production to a point where even in normal times it would not adequately clothe nor feed half the people.
    It was under these circumstances and in the light of these facts that Lenin acknowledged defeat and ordered a retreat. As early as 1921 he announced that there would be a “New Economic Program”—afterwards referred to as the NEP.
    This humiliating reversal of policy was adopted by the Communists to keep from being dethroned. Lenin brought back the payment of wages to workers, which immediately generated the circulation of money in place of the old barter system. In place of the government trading centers, he allowed private concerns to begin buying and selling so that in less than a year three-fourths of all retail distribution was back in private hands. He violated the sanctity of Marx’s memory by even encouraging the peasants to lease additional land and hire other peasants to work for them. He also tried to encourage private initiative by promising the peasants they could sell most of their grain on the open market instead of having it seized by agents of the government as in the past.
    In merely a matter of months, the pauperism and starvation of the old Communist economy began to disappear. The law of supply and demand began to have its effect so that private initiative commenced to provide what the people needed. In the cities an air of relative prosperity rapidly returned to the bleak streets and empty shops.

The Rise of Stalin to Power

    Lenin barely lived long enough to see the New Economic Program go into effect. He had his first stroke in 1922, and died January 20, 1924. As Lenin saw the end drawing near, he became alarmed over the possibility of Joseph Stalin becoming his successor. For many years Lenin had been using Stalin to perform tasks requiring the most ruthless methods, but now he became fearful of what might happen if Stalin used these same methods to take over the Communist Party.
    On December 25, 1923, while lying speechless and half-paralyzed on his deathbed, Lenin wrote the following dramatic appeal to the members of the Politiburo (the supreme governing council of the Communist Party, and hence, of all Russia):
    “Stalin is too rude, and this fault, entirely supportable in relations among us Communists, becomes insupportable in the office of the General Secretary. Therefore, I propose to the comrades to find a way to remove Stalin from that position and appoint to it another man who in all respects differs from Stalin… namely, more patients, more loyal, more polite, and more attentive to comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may seem an insignificant trifle, but I think that from the point of view of preventing a split, and from the point of view of the relation between Stalin and Trotsky… it is not a trifle, or it is such a trifle as may acquire decisive significance.”
    Time proved that Lenin knew whereof he spoke. Stalin’s whole attitude toward life may be caught in a statement which he later made as he was rising to power: “To choose one’s victim, to prepare one’s plans minutely, to stake an implacable vengeance, and then go to bed… there is nothing sweeter in the world.”
Trotsky was purged from the Russian government by Stalin and fled to Mexico to escape assassination. Although Trotsky lived under constant guard, a killer finally got through to him in August, 1940, and smashed his skull with an alpenstock.
    By 1927 Stalin had achieved precisely what Lenin feared he might—the outright control of the Russian Empire. He had not only unseated Trotsky, but had driven from the arena every formidable source of opposition. He had attained such complete victory in the battle for the control of world Communism that he now felt strong enough to try and satisfy one of his greatest ambitions. He determined to make a second attempt to communize Russia.

The First Five-Year Plan

    The first Five-Year Plan began in 1928. It was aimed at wiping out the prosperous independence of businessmen and the peasant farmers who had been thriving during the New Economic Program. Once again there was widespread confiscation of property, and once again the secret police began executing masses of Russians who resisted. Stalin was determined that the Russian economy should be immediately forced into the confines of theoretical socialism and demonstrate to the world that it could out-produce and out-distribute the capitalistic industrial nations, such as the United States and Great Britain. Within weeks, however, the Five-Year-Plan had wiped out the warm glow of prosperity and comparative abundance which Russia had known under the NEP. Rationing was necessary and the hated revolutionary “starvation bread” made of birch bark had to be reintroduced.
    The basic theme of the Five-Year-Plan was collectivized industry and collectivized agriculture. Stalin knew he would get resistance from the prosperous peasants (called Kulaks) and he therefore ordered a complete genocidal liquidation of the Kulaks as a class. Some of the Kulaks destroyed all their property, burned their homes, slaughtered their cattle and fled toward the Caucasus mountains, but most of them were caught or died on the way. Official reports tell how rebellious villages were leveled to the ground by artillery fire and in one area of the Don region, 50,000 men, women and children were destroyed, leaving a vestige of only 2,000 people who were shipped off to central Asia, while the land which they had cultivated for generations was taken over for collectivized farming.
    Stalin also included in the Five-Year-Plan an acceleration of the Communist fight against religion. By 1930 the Union of Militant Atheists had an active membership of two-and-one-half million. Churches and cathedrals were turned into secular buildings. The Christmas festival was prohibited and the buying and selling of Christmas trees was a criminal offense. Sunday was eliminated as a day of worship, and workers were required to rotate their days off so that industry would continue day and night, seven days a week.
    Stalin also attempted to follow Engel’s suggestion to break up the family. All the theories of Marx and Engels were coming to life under the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin.
    By 1930 Stalin was beginning to realize that he may have pressed the long-suffering endurance of the people too far. He therefore came forth with an expression of deep anguish for the suffering masses. He blamed all the troubles on the government officers who, in their zeal, were overshooting the mark and imposing unreasonable demands upon the people, particularly the peasants. He wrote as though he had just heard of the terrible misery which had overtaken the people. But, having cleared himself for the record, Stalin then went firmly ahead with terror tactics which made conditions more frightful than ever.

The Communist Crisis of 1932-33

    By 1932 the situation had reached a crisis. The Russian people had suffered starvation, mass executions, ruthless liquidation of the Kulak class, suppression of all private enterprise, deportations to Siberia and long sentences to forced labor camps. The crimes against humanity were on a scale comparable to the Nazi atrocities subsequently committed at Dachau, Buchenwald, and Belsen.
    In a recent biography of Stalin, Nikolaus Basseches states that during 1932 the leaders of the Communist Party knew they would have to dethrone Stalin or face revolution. Even the army was about to revolt. The Politburo held a secret meeting in December and Stalin made a number of proposals to further suppress the people, but this time even these men who owed their political existence to Stalin voted him down flatly. It is reported that Stalin was so amazed by this display of opposition that he admitted to Molotov that perhaps he should accept defeat and resign. Molotov, however, is said to have encouraged him to hold on a little longer to see if conditions might not improve.

U.S. Recognition of Communist Russia Comes at a Critical Time

    Molotov was right. Future circumstances did offer Stalin a solution to his crisis. The first thing that happened was Hitler’s rise to power in January, 1933. Hitler’s strong anti-Communist policies led many Russians to believe that there might be a war between Russia and Germany, and they therefore began to forget their resentment against Stalin because of their worry over Hitler. The second factor which helped Stalin was the recognition of his Communist regime by the great leader of world capitalism—the United States. This last factor was a singular development.
“There can be no question of the sincere friendliness of the American people toward the Russian people.”—Charles Evan Hughes
    For sixteen years the United States had refused to recognize Russia, and the U.S. Secretaries of State during that period were very precise in explaining why. For example, in 1923 Secretary Charles E. Hughes declared: “There can be no question of the sincere friendliness of the people toward the Russian people. And there is for this very reason a strong desire that nothing should be done (such as granting recognition) to place the seal of approval on the tyrannical measures that have been adopted in Russia, or to take any action which might retard the gradual reassertion of the Russian people of their right to live in freedom.”
A common sight in New York during the 1930s when American Communists paraded through the streets with their familiar slogan: “Defend the Soviet Union.”
    Many such statements over a period of years placed Stalin on notice that if the United States were to recognize Russia, it would require many changes in Communist policies and Communist tactics. Therefore, early in 1933, when Stalin sent his old comrade in arms, Maxim Litvinov, to Washington to negotiate for U.S. recognition, he knew what the terms would have to be. In written statements, Litvinov promised that henceforth the USSR would not attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of the United States; he said the USSR would not allow its officials to use propaganda or agitate for the overthrow of the United States Government, and furthermore, he promised that the USSR would not permit any group to organize in Russia for the purpose of agitating for the overthrow of the United States Government.
    At the moment it looked as though the Communists were going to repudiate the Communist International and world revolution. On the basis of these solemn promises by an official of the Russian government, recognition was extended by the United States to the USSR late in 1933. Such were the circumstances which led the U.S. to change its policy toward Communist Russia from one of co-resistance to co-existence.
    But within ten months, officials of the United States knew this nation had been defrauded. William C. Bullitt, the first U.S. ambassador, reported from Moscow that world revolution was on the tongue of every Soviet official. Plans were already under way for the Communist International (an organization to promote world revolution) to hold its seventh conference in Russia, even though this violated both the letter and the spirit of the promises made by Litvinov.
    The U.S. vigorously protested to Litvinov, but he merely shrugged his shoulders and said the USSR had absolutely no “obligations of any kind with regard to the Communist International.” It was obvious that conditions in Russia had changed. Stalin once more felt secure in his dictatorship. The prestige of U.S. recogniton had served its purpose, and the promises of the USSR were now scraps of paper.
    When the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International convened, the United States was denounced along with all other capitalistic countries, and plans were openly advocated for the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government. In fact, as we shall see in the next chapter, at the very time Litvinov was promising not to interfere in the domestic affairs of the United States, Soviet intelligence officers were busy in Washington setting up elaborate spy rings in various agencies of the government.
    There were political authorities who believe the United States should have broken off diplomatic relations with the Soviets the very moment it was discovered that the Communist leaders were brazenly violating their promises. But this did not happen. Diplomatic strategists at the time advocated that we treat the Bolsheviks like big blustering boys and overlook their delinquencies. They further rationalized that at least we would have a listening post in Russia by maintaining an ambassador there. It was on the basis of this recommendation that the U.S. policy of coexistence fell another notch. Our diplomats decided to eat humble pie made out of apathetic tolerance for broken promises and abject submissiveness to Communist abuse. This boosted Stalin’s political stock in Russia tremendously.

Joseph Stalin’s Return to Power

    When Stalin saw the outward signs of public resentment in Russia disappearing, he felt he could once more assume a bolder front. But a deep-seated hatred continued to fester in the minds of the Communist Party leaders. They secretly admitted among themselves that Stalin must be removed “for the good of the Party.” Therefore, the top revolutionaries of Russia surreptitiously combined their ideas on how best to do away with Stalin. Finally, they decided the best plan was to first destroy those immediately around him and then effect a coup. The initial attempt was against Sergei Kirov—a favorite of the Man of Steel who had been officially designated by the Politburo as Stalin’s successor.
    Kirov was shot and killed gangster style December 1, 1934. It is said that nothing had ever so deeply affected Stalin as this murder. It was perfectly clear to him what his enemies were up to and he therefore struck back with a viciously effective blow. Lists were published of more than one thousand persons selected from every district in Russia and all these were summarily shot.
    Stalin then directed the secret police to plunge into every devious crevice of the party and dig and prod until they had found out who was behind the murder of Kirov. This was not difficult. Even many of the most insignificant members of the Party were aware that some of the biggest names in Russia were involved in the conspiracy. To save their own skins they quickly confessed. Stalin ordered the arrest of every suspect together with their families, associates, friends and even their correspondents.
    Tens of thousands went down before firing squads in secret executions while the more prominent officials were exhibited before the world at Stalin’s famous purge trials. In these trials Stalin’s former comrades of the revolution sought to win mercy for their families by confessing in the most self-degrading language to all the crimes of which they were accused, But it gained them nothing.
    The list of those publicly condemned with their families and friends is described by Nikolaus Basseches as involving “not only ex-leaders of the party… but also fully a dozen members of the Government who were still in office, and the supreme commander of the army, the Chief of Staff, almost all the army commanders, and in addition a considerable number of senior officers; the Minister of Police and the highest police officials; the Deputy People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, almost all the ambassadors ministers representing the Soviet Union abroad, almost the whole of the diplomatic staff at the Ministry in Moscow; and also highly placed judges and members of the governments of the federal republics.”
    Even Whittaker Chambers who was an American Communist spy at the time suspected that a horrible crime against humanity was being enacted in Russia. He later wrote: “The great purge was in the most literal sense a massacre…. This great massacre, probably the greatest in history was deliberately planned and executed…. Those killed have been estimated from several hundred thousand to several million men and women. The process took about three years, 1935–1938.”

Stalin Creates a New Class

    At the very end of the process came the execution of the executioners. Since time immemorial it has been a favorite trick of political pirates and brigands to use a hand-picked band of followers to commit murder and then murder the murderers to cover up the original crime. Stalin followed the same procedure. He selected a pathological personality named Yeshov to set up the secret police machinery for the purge and then drew certain judges into the conspiracy. Both police and judges faithfully performed their miserable missions on the assumption that they were basking in the radiant light of Stalin’s affection and trust.
    Only when they found themselves being flung into dirty dungeons or facing firing squads did they realize that Stalin’s supposed affection and trust was nothing but the figment of their own imaginations. By the hundreds, the chiefs of secret police units, the heads of forced labor camps and the examining judges who had conducted the purge in every district of the USSR found themselves sharing the fate of their victims.
    Even Yeshov, whose unbalanced mind had not only heaped cruelty and violence on Stalin’s enemies but upon their wives and children as well, now faced extinction. He was swept up in the great final dragnet of terror and disappeared into oblivion along with those who had served under him.
    Once Stalin had skirted the brink of political disaster he immediately determined to consolidate his power by the innovation of a Communist spoils system. Prior to this time, the Communist leaders had recognized only two classes—the workers and the peasants. Stalin now decided to give recognition to a new class—the Communist bureaucracy or official class. He bestowed special favors on them by allowing them to shop in “closed” distribution centers. These centers had great quantities of items which were never distributed to the workers. And Stalin arranged it so that his party appointees received other favors—dwellings, luxuries, special holidays, and special educational opportunities for their children. This was Stalin’s way of building a new Communist Party with members who owed absolute allegiance to him.
    He likewise protected them in the new constitution which he presented to the Congress of Soviets in 1936. It provided for the protection of “occupational property.” Thus the official class could not be deprived of wages, articles of consumption, houses nor savings. It even provided that this “occupational property” could be bequeathed. Substantial estates could, therefore, be accumulated by the official class and passed on to a selected beneficiary. These gifts of inheritance (which Communist propaganda had denounced with vehemence for over a century) could also be given to non-relations and in any amount without restrictions.
    To further illustrate the whole change in Stalin’s attitude, he adopted a series of “reforms” which were purely capitalistic in nature. These included payment of interest on savings, the issuing of bonds to which premiums were attached and the legalizing of a wider disparity in wages. A laborer, for example, might receive only one hundred rubles a month while a member of the official class could now get as high as six thousand rubles per month!
    All of this clearly illustrated one simple fact concerning developments in Russia. The “have nots” of yesterday had taken possession of the realm. Their policy was likewise simple: to stay in power permanently and enjoy the spoils of their conquest.
    By 1938 Stalin was supremely confident of his position. He announced that the regime had no enemies left inside of Russia, and there was no longer a need for terrorism or suppression. He made it clear, however, that there must be undeviating prosecution of the Communist program abroad and that the acts of terrorism against the outer world of capitalism should be accepted as necessary and unavoidable.
    Russia was now asserting herself as a world power. Stalin was clearly manifesting a determination to enter the next phase of his dictatorship—the expansion of world Communism.

Communism in the United States

    We have now traced the history of Russian Communism up to 1938. In order to appreciate what happened after 1938 it is necessary to understand the historical development of Communism in the United States.
    The conquest of the United States by Marxist forces has been an important part of the plan of Communist leaders for many years: “First we will take Eastern Europe; then the masses of Asia. Then we will encircle the United States of America which will be the last bastion of Capitalism. We will not have to attack it; it will fail like an over-ripe fruit into our hands.” This clearly reflects the Marxist intent to overthrow the United States by internal subversion.
    It is sometimes difficult for us to realize how enthusiastically encouraged the Communist leaders have frequently felt toward the progress of their program in the United States. The answers to the following questions will indicate why:
    • Have Americans who embraced Communism overlooked a vigorous warning from the Pilgrim Fathers? Why are the Pilgrim Fathers described as having practiced Communism under “the most favorable circumstances”? What were the results?
    • How soon after the Russian Revolution was Communism launched in the United States? How extensive was the first wave of Communist violence?
    • What was William Z. Foster’s testimony under oath concerning a Communist revolution in the United States?
    • Why was Whittaker Chambers able to furnish so many details concerning Communism in the United States? In June, 1932, Chambers was asked to pay the full price of being a Communist—what was it? How did Chambers’ small daughter influence him to abandon Communism?
    • What was the background of Elizabeth Bentley? How did she happen to become the Communist “wife” of a man she did not even know?
    • How did Communists who were employed as Russian spies successfully clear themselves?
    • How would you expect the Communist leaders in Russia to react as they reviewed the U.S. list of top-level government employees who were risking imprisonment and disgrace to commit espionage and otherwise carry out the orders of the Soviet leaders?

American Founding Fathers Try Communism

    One of the forgotten lessons of U.S. history is the fact that the American founding fathers tried Communism before they tried capitalistic free enterprise.
    In 1620 when the Pilgrim Fathers landed at Plymouth, they had already determined to establish a Communist colony. In many ways this communal society was set up under the most favorable circumstances. First of all, they were isolated from outside help and were desperately motivated to make the plan work in order to survive. Secondly, they had a select group of religious men and women who enjoyed a cooperative, fraternal feeling toward one another. The Pilgrims launched their Communist community with the most hopeful expectations. Governor William Bradford has left us a remarkable account of what happened. The Governor reports:
    “This community… was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong… had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought an injustice… and for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc, they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.” (Note that even in a Christian brotherhood, Communism cannot be practiced without setting up a dictatorship.)
    But the colonists would have continued to endure Communism if it had only been productive. The thing which worried Governor Bradford was the fact that the total amount of production under this communal arrangement was so low that the colonists were faced with starvation. Therefore, he says:
    “At length, after much debate… the governor gave way that they should set corn every man for his own purpose, and in that regard trust to themselves… and so assigned to every family a parcel of land according to the proportion of their number.”
    Once a family was given land and corn they had to plant, cultivate and harvest it or suffer the consequences. The Governor wanted the people to continue living together as a society of friends but communal production was to be replaced by private, free enterprise production. After one year the Governor was able to say:
    “This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been…. The women now went willing into the fields, and took their little ones with them to set corn, which before would allege weakness and inability; who to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”
    The Pilgrim Fathers had discovered the great human secret that a man will compel himself to go ever so much farther than he will permit anyone else to compel him to go. As Governor Bradford thought about their efforts to live in a Communist society, he wrote down this conclusion:
    It becomes apparent that Governor Bradford concluded that Communism is not only inefficient but that it is unnatural and in violation of the laws of God. This may raise a question in the minds of some students who have heard that Communism provides the most ideal means of practicing the basic principles of Christianity. Elsewhere, we have considered the historical background of this problem.”{67}
    It is interesting that after the pilgrim fathers tried communism they abandoned it in favor of a free enterprise type of capitalism which, over the centuries, has become more highly developed in the united states than in any other nation. In its earliest stages this system was described as a heartless, selfish institution, but economists have pointed out that after a slow and painful evolution it has finally developed into a social-economic tool which has thus far produced more wealth and distributed it more uniformly among the people of this land than any system modern men have tried.{68} The evolutionary process of further improving and further adapting capitalism to the needs of a highly industrialized society is still going on.

Marxism Comes to the United States

    When the Bolshevik Revolution took place in Russia in 1917, it held a particular interest for a certain group of Americans. This was the left wing faction of the Socialist Party. For years, the Socialists had been trying to get the Federal Government to take over all major industries and socialize the country, but this attempt at peaceful legislative reform had failed. Then suddenly, in November, 1917, these people heard that the Russian Bolsheviks had used revolutionary violence to seize power and had thereafter socialized their country overnight.
    This was promptly accepted by the left wing Socialists as the formula for America. They immediately determined to form a Communist party and use violent revolutionary activity to sovietize America at the earliest possible date. They were greatly encouraged in this venture by a man named John Reed, a journalist, who had recently returned from Russia with glowing enthusiasm for the revolution and world Communism.
    This group made contact with Moscow and was invited to send delegates to Russia in March, 1919, to help form the Third International (copied after Marx’s First International to promote world revolution). When they returned home they started their campaign. John Reed used the columns of the “New York Communist” to agitate the workers to revolt. The Communist ranks were swelled by members of the old I.W.W. (International Workers of the World) who gravitated to the new movement with suggestions that the party members learn to use the techniques of sabotage and violence which the I.W.W. had employed during World War I.
    Further encouragement came to the movement when the Russian Communist Party sent over an official representative of the Soviet Government to help organize a full-fledged Bolshevik program. His name was C.A. Martens. He brought along substantial quantities of money to spend in building cells inside the American labor unions and the U.S. armed forces. It was not enough that the Communists should save the proletariat of Russia; Comrade Martens assured all who heard him that his mission from Moscow was to free the down-trodden workers of capitalistic America. As the movement progressed, American representatives were sent to Russia to get permission to set up the “Communist Labor Party of the United States” as a branch of the Russian-sponsored Communist International (organization for world revolution). Later the word “Labor” was dropped.
    The officers of the new Communist Party signed the “Twenty-one Conditions of Admission” which were to embarrass them many years later when the Party was ordered to register in 1952 as an agency under the control of the Soviet Union.
    Here are typical commitments from the “Twenty-one Conditions of Admission”:
    “The Communist Party (of the USA) must carry on a clear-cut program of propaganda for the hindering of the transportation of munitions of war to the enemies of the Soviet Republic.”
    “The program (of the U.S. Communist Party) must be sanctioned by the regular congress of the Communist International.”
    “All decisions of the Communist International… are binding upon all parties belonging to the Communist International (which would include the U.S. Communist Party).”
    “The duty of spreading Communist ideas includes the special obligation to carry on a vigorous and systematic propaganda in the Army. Where this agitation is forbidden by exceptional laws, it is to be carried on illegally.”
    “Every party wishing to belong to the Communist International must systematically and persistently develop a Communist agitation within the trade-unions.”
    It was basic commitments such as these which led the U.S. Subversive Activities Control Board to make the following statement in 1953 after extended hearings:

The First Wave of Communist Violence Strikes the United States

    Beginning April 28, 1919, a series of 36 bombs were discovered in the mails addressed to such persons as the Attorney General, Justice Holmes of the Supreme Court, J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller and similar persons of prominence. One of the bombs got through to the home of Senator Hardwick who had been trying to shut off the migration of Bolsheviks to the U.S. A servant opened the package and the bomb exploded, blowing off her hands.
    On September 16, 1920, a large bomb was carried in a horse-drawn carriage to the corner of Broad and Wall Streets in New York City—the vortex of American capitalism. The vehicle was brought to a halt across the street from the un-ostentatious three-story limestone building occupied by the firm of J. P. Morgan and Company.
    Suddenly a great roar went up from the carriage, and blue-white flame shot into the sky. The bomb exploded with tremendous violence, killing thirty people outright and injuring hundreds more. It wrecked the interior of the Morgan offices, smashed windows for blocks around and shot an iron slug through a window on the thirty-fourth floor of the Equitable Building.
    These acts of murder and violence created a blistering resentment against the Bolsheviks in every part of the United States. Occasionally counter-violence was used by aroused citizens in retaliation. Numerous arrests were made by the Attorney General and finally a whole shipload of Bolshevik aliens and Communist leaders were deported to Russia via Finland on the S.S. Buford. Aboard the boat was the notorious Emma Goldman whose anarchist speeches a quarter of a century earlier had induced Leon Czolgosz to assassinate President McKinley. Little did she know that in twenty-four months she would not only repudiate Lenin and his Bolsheviks but that by 1940 her great last hope would be to die in the United States.

William Z. Foster Launches the Communist Labor Union Drive

    Few names among Communist leaders today are better known to the American public than the name of William Z. Foster. He was a charter member of the party in the United States and was the person designated by the party to take over the U.S. labor unions. Most of the money for the campaign came from Moscow where the Profintern (Red International of Trade Unions) had received $1,000,000 from the Soviet Government to help spread Communism in the labor unions of other nations.
    Foster’s drive hit the labor front soon after the armistice, when the workers were already in a state of agitation resulting from wartime conditions. Foster found little difficulty in sparking strikes in several important industries and even where he had nothing to do with a strike he was often given the credit. As a result, many people began to identify their pro-labor sympathies with Communism without completely realizing it.
    The coal miners were believed to have come under Foster’s influence when they voted enthusiastically to have the coal industry nationalized and a similar label seemed to attach itself to the steel strike because Foster was very much in evidence as an agitator and promoter of the strike. Many people knew that both the coal miners and the steel workers had many legitimate reasons for striking and to them the fact that Foster and his Communist associates seized this opportunity to worm their way into the labor movement seemed of little importance.
    But William Z. Foster never really concealed his fundamental ambition to overthrow the United States government by violence and subordinate the American laborer (as well as every other American) to the mandates of a Communist dictatorship copied after the Russian pattern. In fact, Mr. Foster visualized himself as the coming dictator. He was the Communist candidate for President on two occasions and wrote a book called Toward Soviet America, telling just how the Communists would take over.
    When a Congressional committee placed him under oath and asked him about Communism, he was voluble and frank:
    The Chairman: “Do the Communists in this country advocate world revolution?”
    Mr. Foster: “Yes.”
    The Chairman: “Do they (the Communists) advocate revolution in this country?”
    Mr. Foster: “I have stated that the Communists advocate abolition of the capitalist system in this country and every other country….”
    The Chairman: “Now, are the Communists in this country opposed to our republican form of government?”
    Mr. Foster: “The capitalist Democracy—most assuredly.”
    The Chairman: “What you advocate is a change of our republican form of government and the substituting of the soviet form of government?
    Mr. Foster: “I have stated that a number of times.”
    The Chairman: “Now, if I understand you, the workers in this country look upon the Soviet Union as their country; is that right?”
    Mr. Foster: “The more advanced workers do.”
    The Chairman: “They look upon the Soviet flag as their flag?”
    Mr. Foster: “The workers of this country and the workers of every country have only one flag and that is the red flag.”
    The Chairman: “…If they had to choose between the red flag and the American flag, I take it from you that you would choose the red flag, is that correct?”
    Mr. Foster: “I have stated my answer.”
    The Chairman: “I don’t want to force you to answer if it embarrasses you, Mr. Foster.”
    From 1921 to 1924, members of the Communist Party sought to avoid arrest by operating underground, but when the wartime emergency acts were repealed the Communist leaders gradually surfaced again and continued their campaign for a revolution to overthrow the United States government.
    However, during the next few years the general psychology of the country was not particularly security conscious. It was an era of fads, frivolity and general post-war frenzy. The national scene was entirely too prosperous and intoxicating to worry about a few fanatic-minded men who wanted to rule the world. Somehow or other the word “Communist” began to have a far-away flavor, and people jokingly spoke of the former years of bomb-throwing, strikes, arrests and deportations as the days of “the great Red scare.”
    However, a fertile field for future Communist conquests was being developed among the very people who feared it least. The United States was going sophisticated in an atmosphere of half-baked intellectualism. Pedestals of the past crumbled to the cry of scandal and the rattling of closeted skeletons. An age of daring debunking had arrived. At the time few people realized that the economic and spiritual collapse toward which the nation was drifting would produce an intellectual revolt that would permit the agents of Communism to propel them into every echelon of American society—including some of the highest offices of the United States Government. This brings us to the story of Whittaker Chambers. Because Chambers was converted to Communism during this period and worked himself up to the highest levels of intrigue as a leader of Russian espionage, his disclosures give a sweeping panoramic picture of the growth of Communism in the United States from 1925–1938.

The Growth of U.S. Communism as Seen by Whittaker Chambers

    A brief review of Whittaker Chambers’ conversion to Communism will perhaps reveal an evolutionary pattern which was followed by a considerable number of young American intellectuals during the Nineteen-Twenties and early Thirties.
    Whittaker Chambers was raised on Long Island not far from suburban New York. In the Chambers home was an impersonal and disinterested father (a newspaper illustrator), an over-loving and therefore overbearing mother (who had formerly been an actress), an insane grandmother and a younger brother toward whom Chambers felt no particular fraternal affection.
    Both Chambers and his younger brother came to maturity during the hectic post-war period and, like many people of their time, both became moral and spiritual casualties. Chambers’ younger brother returned from college cynical and disillusioned. He became an alcoholic and finally committed suicide. The whole family seemed to have degenerated into a pattern of life which was precisely the mess of purposeless Pottage that Marx and Engels had declared it to be. Whittaker Chambers describes his own experiences as follows:
    Chambers went to work for Communism in real earnest. He became co-editor of The Textile Worker, wrote for the Daily Worker, took a Communist “wife” and learned the strike tactics of trade union violence. He writes that during this period, “I first learned that the Communist Party employed gangsters against the fur bosses in certain strikes…. I first learned how Communist union members would lead their own gangs of strikers into scab shops and in a few moments slash to pieces with their sharp-hooked fur knives thousands of dollars’ worth of mink skins.”{72}
    It was his intention to make the Communist program the permanent pattern of his life. Before long, however, his Communist “wife” left him to go her own way and Chambers felt it would be more to his liking to make his next union (which took place in 1931) an official “bourgeois marriage” at some city hall. At this stage, Chambers would never have guessed that he also had other sensibilities which would one day take him out of Communism and make him senior editor of Time magazine at a salary of around $30,000 per year!
    In 1928, Chambers saw the first series of purges in the American Communist Party. For several years, the party had been dominated by Charles E. Ruthenburg, “the American Lenin.” When Ruthenburg suddenly died there was a mad scramble for power. Jay Lovestone came out on top with William Z. Foster representing a small, noisy minority. But soon Lovestone made a serious political mistake. He sided with one of Stalin’s most powerful Russian opponents. Nikolai Bukharin, who stood for a less violent program than Stalin had in mind.
    Lovestone and William Z. Foster were summoned to Moscow. When they returned, Lovestone was a broken man. He had been called a traitor by Stalin and thrown out of the party. Stalin had named Foster the heir to the throne. The next step was to force every member of the party in the United States to support Foster’s radical program or be expelled. Most Communists picked up the new set of signals from Moscow and immediately swore allegiance to Foster. But not so with Chambers. It looked to him as though Stalin were behaving exactly like a Fascist dictator by forcing the majority of the American Communists to follow leadership they had already voted against. Chambers stopped being active in the party.
    For two years, by his own choice, Chambers remained outside the regular ranks. He was never expelled, nor did his loyalty to Communism change, but he deeply resented Stalin. The entire situation was changed, however, by the great depression. Chambers’ sympathies for the unemployed once more drew him back toward the party program. He also felt forced to admit that from all appearances the long-predicted collapse of American capitalism had arrived.
    In the spirit of the times, Chambers wrote a story called, “Can You Hear the Voices?” It was a great success. It was made into a play, published as a pamphlet and hailed by Moscow as splendid revolutionary literature. The next thing Chambers knew he was being feted by the American Communist Party as though he had never left it. Chambers soon went back to work for the revolution.
    It was in June, 1932, that Chambers was asked to pay the full price of being a Communist. The Party nominated him to serve as a spy against the United States in the employment of the Soviet Military Intelligence. For the sake of his wife Chambers tried to get out of this assignment, but a member of the Central Committee in New York told him, “You have no choice.”
    Chambers soon found himself under the iron discipline of the Russian espionage apparatus. Because Communism had become his faith, Chambers blindly followed instructions. He became expert in the conspiratorial techniques of clandestine meetings, writing secret documents, shaking off followers, trusting no one, being available day and night at the beck and call of superiors.
    Before long Chambers was assigned to be the key contact man for Russia’s most important spy cell in Washington, D.C. Chambers has described his espionage associations with the following persons who were later to become top officials in the United States Government:
    1. Alger Hiss, whom Chambers says became a close personal friend. Hiss started out in the Department of Agriculture, and then served on the Special Senate Committee investigating the munitions industry. For awhile he served in the Department of Justice and then went to the State Department. There he made a meteoric rise, serving as Director of the highly important office of Political Affairs. He served as advisor to President Roosevelt at Yalta and as Secretary General of the International Assembly which created the United Nations.
    2. Harry Dexter White, who later became Assistant Secretary of the United States Treasury and author of the Morgenthau Plan.
    3. John J. Abt, who served in the Department of Agriculture, the WPA, the Senate Committee on Education and Labor and was then made a Special Assistant to the Attorney General in charge of the trial section.
    4. Henry H. Collins, who served in the NRA, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, and the Department of State. During World War II he became a major in the Army and in 1948 became Executive Director of the American Russian Institute (cited by the Attorney General as a Communist front organization).
    5. Charles Kramer, who served in the National Labor Relations Board, the Office of Price Administration, and in 1943, joined the staff of the Senate Sub-committee on War Mobilization.
    6. Nathan Witt, who served in the Department of Agriculture and then became the Secretary of the National Labor Relations Board.
    7. Harold Ware, who served in the Department of Agriculture.
    8. Victor Perlo, who served in the Office of Price Administration, the War Production Board, and the Treasury.
    9. Henry Julian Wadleigh, who became a prominent official in the Treasury Department.
    Chambers testified that he received so many confidential government documents through his contacts that it took the continuous efforts of two and sometimes three photographers to microfilm the material and keep it flowing to Russia. Chambers says he considered Alger Hiss his number one source of information. He has described how Hiss would bring home a brief case each night filled with material from the State Department. Some of these documents would be microfilmed. Others would be copied by Hiss on his typewriter or he would make summaries in longhand. It was a number of these typed documents and memos in the certified handwriting of Alger Hiss which became famous as the “Pumpkin Papers” and subsequently convicted Hiss of perjury.
    In later years when Chambers was asked to give his explanation as to why so many well-educated Americans were duped into committing acts of subversion against their native country, he explained that once a person has been converted to the ideology of Communism he will consider espionage to be a moral act—a duty—committed in the name of humanity for the good of future society.
    The unbelievable extent to which Americans participated in Russian-directed espionage against the United States during the depression and during World War II has only recently become generally recognized. Many complete books have now been written which summarize the evidence unearthed by the FBI, the courts and Congress.

Whittaker Chambers Breaks with Communism

    In 1938, at the very height of his career as a Russian courier and contact man, Chambers found his philosophy of materialism collapsing. It was one morning while feeding his small daughter that Chambers suddenly realized as he watched her that the delicate yet immense complexity of the human body and human personality could not possibly be explained in terms of accumulated accident. Chambers dated his break with Communism from that moment.
    At first he was highly disturbed and tried to thrust the new conviction from his mind, but as he opened his thinking to the evidence around him he finally became completely persuaded that he was living in a universe of amazingly immaculate design which was subject to the creative supervision of a supreme intelligence. Consequently, just as Communist philosophy had brought him into the movement its collapse made him determined to get out. It was many months later before he finally disentangled himself and ran away from the Soviet Intelligence Service.
    Chambers says that when he ultimately made his break with Communism he did everything in his power to get his close friend, Alger Hiss, to leave with him. Alger Hiss, however, not only refused but, according to Chambers heatedly denounced him for trying to influence him.
    From watching the fate of others, Chambers already had some idea of what it meant to try and leave the conspiratorial apparatus of Communism. Nevertheless, the course he followed brought physical and mental suffering that not even he had suspected.
    Today, no more complete account of the agonizing experiences of those who dare to wear the badge of an ex-Communist can be found than that contained in the s of Chambers’ autobiography, Witness. At one point he worked with a gun beside him for fear the Russian secret police would take his life just as they were doing to so many others. At another point he tried to take his own life to keep from having to expose those who had formerly been his most intimate friends.
    Most of these details can only be appreciated in their full text. For our purposes it is sufficient to point out that up until the time Chambers did finally make up his mind to tell the whole story, the American public was almost completely unaware of the vast network of spy activities which Russia had built into every strata of American society. And this unfortunate condition existed even though the FBI had been carefully gathering facts and warning government officials concerning Communist activities for many years.
    Finally, a cloud of witnesses confirmed that it was true.

Elizabeth Bentley Takes Over After Chambers Leaves

    Chambers had no way of knowing that after he deserted the Russian espionage system, the Soviets would replace him with a woman. Her name was Elizabeth Bentley.
    She came from a long line of New England American ancestors, She had attended Vassar, traveled and studied in Italy for a year and returned to the United States in 1934 to find the country deep in a depression. Having failed to get a job, she decided her only chance was to learn a business course so she enrolled at the School of Business at Columbia University. There she met up with a number of people who were friendly and sympathetic toward her. It was quite some time before she knew they were Communists. As these friends explained Communism to her it seemed rather reasonable—in fact, the way they explained it, Communism would be a great improvement over American Capitalism (which at that moment was bogged down like an iceberg with unemployment and bankruptcy). So Elizabeth Bentley became a Communist. She entered the campaign with all the zeal that could come from a girl in her twenties who suddenly believes that a new era of history is about to open up which will solve all of humanity’s problems.
    For some time Elizabeth Bentley worked in New York’s Welfare Department and while there she was made the financial secretary of the Columbia University Communist unit. She attended the Communist Workers’ School and joined so many front organizations under different names that on at least one occasion she went to a meeting and could not remember who she was supposed to be!
    Before long the activities of Elizabeth Bentley had tracked the leaders of the Russian underground apparatus and before she really knew what had happened to her she had been carefully shifted from the day-to-day assignments of the U.S. Communist Party to the underground network of Soviet espionage.
    She worked for three different individuals before she was finally assigned to an over-worked, old-time revolutionary called “Timmy.” Elizabeth Bentley fell in love with Timmy.
    One day he said to her: “You and I have no right to feel the way we do about each other…. There is only one way out, and that is to stick together and keep our relationship unknown to everyone…. You will have to take me completely on faith, without knowing who I am, where I live, or what I do for a living.”
    This was how Elizabeth Bentley became the Communist wife of a man who turned out to be Jacob Golos, one of the all-powerful chiefs of the Russian Secret Police in the United States.
    Under his training Elizabeth Bentley became what she later called a “steeled Bolshevik.”
    In May, 1940, she read that an attempt had been made against the life of Leon Trotsky in Mexico. The attempt had failed but his personal bodyguard had been kidnaped and shot in the back. For years Stalin had been trying to liquidate his old enemy and from the way Jacob Golos behaved Elizabeth Bentley knew her Communist mate was in on the plot. Several months later a killer actually got through to Trotsky and smashed his skull with an alpenstock.
    Beginning in 1941, Elizabeth Bentley was used by the Russian espionage apparatus to collect material from contacts in Washington, D.C. She says she first became the courier for the Silvermaster spy group which was extracting information from Communist contacts in the Pentagon and other top-secret governmental agencies. Before she was through she had picked up nearly all of Whittaker Chambers’ former contacts and many more besides.
    Occasionally there was near disaster, as was the case just after Gregory Silvermaster got a job with the Board of Economic Warfare through the influence of Lauchlin Currie (an administrative assistant at the White House). She says that after taking the Job he was shown a letter addressed to his superior from the head of Army Intelligence indicating that the FBI and Naval Intelligence had proof of his Communist connections. The letter demanded that Silvermaster be discharged.
    Anyone familiar with the format of defense followed by suspected Communists who were hailed before Congressional investigating committees will immediately recognize the Party’s trade mark on the trite pretension of abused innocence recommended by Elizabeth Bentley. When one considers its relatively naive and childlike simplicity it is almost a cause for national chagrin that it confused and deceived such an amazing number of people for such an inexplicable number of years. As with practically all of the others Elizabeth Bentley’s suggestions paid off handsomely for Silvermaster and he soon gained support from many powerful and unexpected sources.
    After three months of “fighting back” the Under-Secretary of War became convinced from hearing various pleas that an injustice had been done to Silvermaster and therefore ordered his dismissal cancelled. Silvermaster was allowed to resign and return to his old job in the Department of Agriculture with a clean slate. Elizabeth Bentley concludes by saying, “After a sigh of relief that must have echoed throughout the entire Russian Secret Police apparatus, we went back to our normal routine.”
    According to the sworn testimony of Elizabeth Bentley, she worked with three major spy cells. The first was the “Ware Cell”—the same group Chambers had handled. In addition she handled the “Silvermaster Cell” and the “Perlo Cell.” She said these three cells were charged with the task of supplying her with an almost endless stream of information for transmittal to Moscow. She testified under oath that the members of the Silvermaster Cell and the Perlo Cell were as follows (the departments in which the members were working during the time she had contact with them are also listed):
The Silvermaster Cell
    1. Nathan Gregory Silvermaster served as Director of the Labor Division of the Farm Security Administration; was detailed for a short period to the Board of Economic Warfare.
    2. Solomon Adler served in the Treasury Department as an agent to China.
    3. Norman Bursler worked in the Department of Justice as a special assistant.
    4. Frank Coe worked as Assistant Director, Division of Monetary Research, Treasury Department; special assistant to the United States Ambassador in London; assistant to the Executive Director, Board of Economic Warfare; Assistant Administrator, Foreign Economic Administration.
    5. William Gold, known also as Bela Gold, worked as assistant head of the Division of Program Surveys, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Department of Agriculture; Senate Subcommittee on War Mobilization; Office of Economic Programs in Foreign Economic Administration.
    6. Mrs. William (Sonia) Gold worked as research assistant, House Select Committee on Interstate Migration; labor-market analyst, Bureau of Employment Security; Division of Monetary Research, Treasury Department.
    7. Abraham George Silverman served as Director of the Bureau of Research and Information Services, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board; economic adviser and chief of analysis and plans, Assistant Chief of Air Staff, Materials and Services, Air Force.
    8. William Taylor worked in the Treasury Department.
    9. William Ludwig Ullman worked in the Division of Monetary Research, Treasury Department; Material and Service Division, Air Corps Headquarters, Pentagon.
The Perlo Cell
    1. Victor Perlo (also connected with the Ware Cell), worked as the head of a branch in the Research Section, Office of Price Administration; served the War Production Board handling problems relating to military aircraft production.{74}
    2. Edward J. Fitzgerald served on the War Production Board.
    3. Harold Glasser served in the Treasury Department, loaned to the government of Ecuador; loaned to the War Production Board; worked as adviser on North African Affairs Committee in Algiers, North Africa.
    4. Charles Kramer (also connected with the Ware Cell), worked for the National Labor Relations Board; Office of Price Administration; economist with the Senate Subcommittee on War Mobilization.
    5. Solomon Leshinsky worked for the United States Relief and Rehabilitation Administration.
    6. Harry Magdoff worked for the Statistical Division of the War Production Board and the Office of Emergency Management; the Bureau of Research and Statistics of the W.P.B., the Tools Division of W.P.B. and the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce.
    7. Allan Rosenberg worked in the Foreign Economic Administration.
    8. Donald Niven Wheeler worked in the Office of Strategic Services.
    In addition, Elizabeth Bentley named the following individuals who cooperated in obtaining information from government files even though they were not tied in to any particular cell:
    1. Michael Greenburg—Board of Economic Warfare; Foreign Economic Administration, specialist on China.
    2. Joseph Gregg—Coordinator of Inter-American affairs, assistant in Research Division.
    3. Maurice Halperin—Office of Strategic Services; head of Latin American Division in the Research and Analysis Branch; head of Latin American research and analysis, State Department.
    4. J. Julius Joseph—Office of Strategic Services, Japanese Division.
    5. Duncan Chaplin Lee—Office of Strategic Services; legal adviser to General William J. Donovan.
    6. Robert T. Miller—Head of political research, Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs; member, Information Service Committee, Near Eastern Affairs, State Department; Assistant Chief, Division of Research and Publications, State Department.
    7. William Z. Park—Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs,
    8. Bernard Redmont—Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs.
    9. Helen Tenney—Office of Strategic Services, Spanish Division.
    These lists of names are set forth to illustrate the remarkable and devastating pipelines of information which Elizabeth Bentley says the Soviet underground tapped in Washington during the time she served as the Russian Secret Police pay-master and courier in the nation’s capital.
    Elizabeth Bentley worked doggedly for the Soviets until 1944. However, a great shock had come to her in 1943 when Jacob Golos died suddenly of a heart attack on Thanksgiving eve. Just before his death, Golos revealed to her the ruthlessness of his Soviet superiors who were driving him unmercifully and forcing him to engage in activities which were nauseating even to the revolutionary-hardened sense of his own calloused conscience.
    And after Golos’ death further disillusionment came to Elizabeth Bentley when she learned that Earl Browder had agreed to turn over a group of American Communists in Washington to a most unscrupulous set of Soviet espionage agents. When she challenged Browder, he reportedly told her, “Don’t be naive. You know that when the cards are down, I have to take my orders from them. I just hoped I could sidetrack them in this particular matter, but it didn’t work out.”
    “But Greg’s an old friend of yours,” Elizabeth Bentley said (referring to a member of the group). “So what?” replied Browder. “He’s expendable.” Shortly afterwards Elizabeth Bentley was surprised by a visit from a top Soviet official from Moscow who told her she had been awarded the highest medal of the Soviet Union—the Order of the Red Star. But she was not nearly as impressed by the proffered honor as she was disgusted and revolted by the kind of individual the Soviet official turned out to be. From that moment on she felt that the Communist leaders in Russia were absolutely incapable of building a great new world—no matter how much information she sent them.
    The final blow to her idealism came when the Soviets tried to force her to turn over to them a girl-friend who was wanted for the immoral role of an entertainer for high government officials.
    One night, alone, Elizabeth Bentley challenged herself, “What has happened to all of us who started out so gallantly to build a new world?” Deep inside herself she was finally able to admit what had happened. “We had been corrupted and smashed by a machine more merciless than anything the world had ever seen.”
    Many weeks later, Elizabeth Bentley finally walked into the FBI ready to do everything in her power to make amends to her native country.
    In some ways it was simultaneously a triumph and a tragedy. For her, personally, it was a triumph. It was the chance she needed to square herself with her conscience and her country. However, in 1948, when she gave her sworn testimony before a congressional committee, it threatened to become a tragedy. The Communist press was joined by many so-called “liberal” factions to accuse her of being everything from a degenerate to a psychopathic liar or a victim of insanity. It took time and corroborative testimony of many witnesses to finally halt the clamor.
    Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers have testified that they were both typical members of a small but extremely dangerous segment of Americans who, through misguided ideologies, swelled the ranks of Communism during the interval between World War I and the close of World War II. The vast majority passed through the same evolution—first, an ideological conversion followed by a desire to take action; secondly, an exposure to the hard-core realities of Communism in actual operation; and finally, an awakening followed by a dynamic determination to desert the delusion and fight it from the outside.
    Fortunately for America, as well as for its citizens who served the Communist cause, these erstwhile members of the party usually returned to the American way of life more loyal to its principles than when they left. Only a few have still refused to open their eyes and ears to all that has been revealed. This unreclaimed group still labors day and night in a dedicated service to “the cause.”

Communism and World War II

    While Communist espionage channels were being perfected in the United States, similar subversive networks were being built throughout the world. Soon Stalin found the state secrets of all the major powers pouring in so fast that he was able to play the world-wide game of power politics like a professional gambler who sits at the poker table carefully planning his strategy as he reads the marked cards held by each of the other players.
    We now know that it was from this supremely satisfying position of political omniscience that Stalin initiated a series of schemes which had their part in precipitating World War II. Defected Russian Intelligence officers have revealed that World War II was fomented and used by the Russian leaders as an important part of the long-range strategy for the expansion of World Communism. This chapter will answer the following questions:
    • What is the explanation for Stalin’s attempt to reach a secret understanding with Hitler in 1933?
    • Why did Stalin claim credit for starting World War II?
    • Why did Stalin’s pact with Hitler in 1939 surprise Communists throughout the world?
    • Was Stalin caught off guard when Hitler scrapped the pact and attacked Russia?
    • What was the U.S. attitude during the early months of the Nazi invasion of Russia? What changed that attitude?
    • What do you deduct from this statement in 1942 by a Presidential advisor: “Generations unborn will owe a great measure of their freedom to the unconquerable power of the Soviet people”? Did Allied leaders appear to have had a basic understanding of Communist strategy?
    • How did the Communist leaders use Lend-Lease to get atomic bomb secrets?
    • When did U.S. coexistence with Communism begin? Name the four steps of degeneration through which it passed. On what presumption was Russia made a full partner with the U.S. in shaping the post-war world?
    • How do you account for the fact that the United Nations Charter follows the format of the Russian Constitution of 1936 rather than the format of the League of Nations? Would you feel there was any significance in the fact that the general secretary for the organization which drew up the charter was Alger Hiss?
    • What was the attitude of the Communist leaders when they emerged from World War II as the second greatest political power on earth?

The Rise of Adolf Hitler and Nazism in Germany

    It is said that Communism was largely responsible for the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. It will be recalled that when the German Kaiser capitulated in 1918 the Communists tried to take over Germany. Anti-communist political groups immediately sprang up and through a frantic coalition they prevented the Communists from seizing power. It was in this anti-Communist atmosphere that Adolf Hitler began his political career. He joined the National Socialists (Nazi) Party which had a strong anti-Bolshevik platform and by 1921 he had become its leader.
    Hitler organized his notorious Nazi Storm Troopers to retaliate against a spreading rash of Communist violence. He had his Brown Shirts trained in street fighting, rioting and the suppression of political opponents by direct physical attack. By 1923 the Storm Troopers numbered 10,000 and Hitler felt strong enough to try and take over the German province of Bavaria. But this uprising failed. Hitler was thrown into prison and while there began expressing his frustrated ambitions in a feverish manuscript on total war called Mein Kampf—My Battle. In this book Hitler revealed that he was not only bitterly anti-communistic but that he stood for outright violation of the Treaty of Versailles. He said he would fight for the complete restoration of Germany as a world power. He was planning for the creation of a great Nordic empire embracing all the people of German blood in Europe regardless of their national residence. Mein Kampf constituted a threat to every nation bordering on Germany. It also contained a threat against Russia because Hitler declared that the natural course of German expansion would eventually carry the Nazi conquest into the fertile Ukrainian agricultural region and then into the rich Russian oil fields.
    Later as Stalin watched Hitler cudgel and jostle his way into power he recognized in the Nazi dictator a formidable opponent of his own breed and kind. He saw that Hitler was shrewd and ruthless. He was completely amoral. He had no compunction whatever against violence, the purging of his own people, the use of deceit in propaganda, nor the sacrifice of millions of lives to achieve personal power. Materialism had produced precisely the same product in Germany that it had produced in Russia. Although called by different names Nazism and Communism were aimed at the same identical mark and were forged in very similar ideological molds.
    Stalin then hastened to gain the sympathies of the democracies. He attempted to identify Russia’s policies with the political and economic welfare of freedom-loving people in other nations. He called this campaign the “Popular Front.” At the Seventh World Congress of the International in 1935, he instructed loyal Communists in every country to combine with any political groups which opposed Hitler and his allies—even right wing parties which the Communists had previously attacked. Judged by its results, the “Popular Front” was the most successful tactic ever adopted by Communist strategists. It permitted Communists to associate openly with the most conservative and highly respected political groups in capitalist countries.

The Communists Claim Credit for Starting World War II

    In 1938 Stalin watched closely as Hitler decided to test the temper of the Western Allies by occupying all of Austria. When no serious consequences resulted, the Fuehrer prepared to assimilate other areas along the German borders. At Munich he threatened to blitzkrieg Europe unless England and France let him take over the industrial section of Czechoslovakia. When they agreed, he immediately extended his occupation to nearly all of that valiant little country.
    In 1939 Hitler seized Memelland in Lithuania and then prepared to march into Poland. However, at this point he hesitated. Russia wanted Poland, too. As a matter of fact, Russia held the balance of power in Europe and Hitler did not dare take steps which would start an all-out war in the West unless he could be assured that Russia would not interfere. Hitler, therefore, made overtures to Stalin to sign a nonaggression pact. To the astonishment of the whole world, Stalin accepted! This meant that Hitler could go to war with the assurance that Russia would not interfere.
    This caught most of the Communist world completely off guard. For years Red propaganda had portrayed Stalin as the world’s leading opponent of Nazism and Fascism. Now Stalin’s regime had ratified a pact with the Nazis which gave them a carte blanche to start a war in the West.
    In America it took the Communist press several days to get their propaganda in reverse. Whittaker Chambers says it was absolutely incomprehensible to American Communists that Stalin would capitulate to his greatest enemy. It was not until Chambers talked with Stalin’s former director of espionage in Western Europe that he heard the official explanation. General W.G. Krivitsky said this pact demonstrated Stalin’s genius as a strategist. He explained that Stalin knew this pact would turn Hitler loose on Europe but that he also knew that as the war progressed it was likely that the western nations would fight themselves into exhaustion. At that point Soviet troops could march in. Almost without a blow the Soviet troops would be able to take over all of Europe in the name of the dictatorship of the proletariat!
    And just as Stalin had suspected, Hitler was not at all slow to take advantage of the political shove Stalin had given him. The pact was signed August 23, 1939. By September 1, the German Panzers were pouring through the valiant, but helpless ranks of the Polish horse cavalry, and thousands of tons of bombs were falling on Polish cities.
    Also, as Stalin had expected, England and France were immediately dragged into the war because of their commitments to Poland. This was a war which these countries were neither physically nor psychologically prepared to wage. Before a year had passed, Poland had been divided between Germany and Russia and France had been occupied. Soon afterwards the British troops were bombed off the European continent at Dunkirk, and the Nazis were then left practically without resistance as they expanded their occupation into Denmark, Norway, Holland and Belgium.
    Assuming that the war would now settle down to a struggle between Germany and England, Stalin felt ready to make his next carefully calculated move. Only two major capitalist nations still remained outside of the conflict: Japan and the United States.
    On April 13, 1941, Stalin nudged the Japanese war lords into an offensive in the Pacific. This was accomplished by the same simple device as that which had turned Hitler loose on Europe—a pact.
    At that moment Russia, even more than the United States, was the greatest single impediment to Japanese expansion in East Asia and the Pacific. By accepting a pact with Russia, the Japanese war lords were left free to launch their pan-Asiatic campaign in the Pacific and the Far East. They made immediate preparations for their attack.

Stalin Suffers a Strategic Defeat

    Stalin now intended to sit back and wait for the capitalist nations to endure their baptism of fire. He had assured the Soviet military leaders that World War II would be won by the nation which stayed out the longest. That nation, of course, must be Russia. What he did not know, however, was that Adolf Hitler had been planning a disastrous surprise for the Communist Motherland. In fact, at the very moment Stalin was promoting his neutrality pact with Japan, Adolf Hitler was secretly announcing to his general staff: “The German armed forces must be prepared to crush Soviet Russia in a quick campaign.”
    The great surprise came on June 22, 1941. Hitler scrapped the pact and attacked Russia on a 2,000 mile front with 121 divisions and 3,000 planes. He had written all about it years before in Mein Kampf.
    This sudden blitzkrieg attack changed the history of the world. It shattered Stalin’s intention to stay out of the war while the capitalistic nations fought themselves to exhaustion. It meant that Russia would enter the war prematurely and with the most meager preparations.

World War II Moves Closer to the United States

    To many observers in the United States, this new development in World War II appeared favorable to the interest of peace-loving countries. Hitler’s attack on Russia locked the world’s two greatest aggressor nations in deadly combat and even military leaders thought this might relieve future world tensions. But within six months the Germans had occupied 580,000 square miles of the richest land in the USSR—land originally occupied by more than one third of Russia’s population, and in spite of the “scorched earth” policy of Russia, the Nazi troops successfully extracted their supplies from the people and the land so that they were able to race forward without waiting to have supply lines established. Soon German Panzers had penetrated to a point only sixty miles from Moscow and Hitler announced exuberantly that “Russia is already broken and will never rise again.”
    All of this shocked the rest of the world into the reprehensible possibility of a Nazi empire which might extend from England to Alaska. Instinctively Americans began cheering for the Russians. It was considered to be a matter of vital self interest, implemented by the traditional American tendency to cheer for the underdog.
    Then the fatal dawn of Sunday, December 7, 1941, brought the devastating attack of the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and the United States found herself in the holocaust of World War II before she was even halfway prepared. In desperation American leaders reached out in all directions for friends. It is important to remember that the black boots of Hitler’s marching Wehrmacht had pounded a paralyzing fear into the hearts of peoples on every continent. It was Nazism—not Communism—that was blotting out the light of civilization around the earth. Therefore, since Russia had already been brought within the orbit of American sympathy, it is not difficult to understand how she became an intimate U.S. ally almost over night. Somehow it seemed impossible to remember that this was the very same Russia that had joined a nonaggression pact with Hitler to turn him loose in Europe, and had joined a neutrality pact with the Japanese to turn them loose in the Pacific.

The U.S. Policy of Coexistence Goes into Its Third Stage

    By the early spring of 1942 it was not only apparent that the war had caught U.S. military strength at a very low level, but it was also equally obvious that the Axis had practically destroyed all of America’s traditional allies. Perhaps, as George F. Kennan suggests, this may partially account for the desperate gamble taken at that time by certain U.S. diplomatic strategists in dealing with Russia.
    Already the diplomatic navigators had gone from a policy of plain coexistence with Communism in 1933, to one step lower where they had decided to accept the abuse and the broken promises of the Communist leaders. Now they resolved to go even further. They decided to try to convert the Communist leaders to the American way of thinking by showering them with such overwhelming generosity that there could be no vestige of suspicion concerning the desire of the United States to gain the cooperative support of the Communist leaders in winning the war and later preserving the peace. It was assumed that they would then become permanently and sympathetically allied with the United States and the western democracies in building a “one world” of peace and prosperity.
    If this plan had worked, it would have been truly a master stroke of diplomatic genius. Unfortunately, however, it turned out to be just what many military officials and heads of intelligence agencies predicted it would be—the means by which Russia would catapult herself into a world power by capitalizing on the treasure and prestige of the very nation she most desired to destroy.
    Nevertheless, the program was inaugurated and America’s attitude toward Russia both during and after World War II can only be understood in terms of this policy.
    In early June, 1942, Molotov came secretly to Washington and stayed at the White House. After his departure preparations were made to break the new U.S. policy to the American people. On June 22, 1942, (the anniversary of Hitler’s attack on the USSR) a Russian Aid Rally was held in New York’s Madison Square Garden. There a top government official announced: “A second front? Yes, and if necessary, a third and a fourth front…. We are determined that nothing shall stop us from sharing with you all that we have and are in this conflict, and we look forward to sharing with you the fruits of victory and peace.” Then there followed the pathetic, but blindly hopeful statement: “Generations unborn will owe a great measure of their freedom to the unconquerable power the Soviet people.”{76}
One of the meetings of Premier Stalin, President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill. This one was held at Teheran during one of the most critical periods of World War II.

The Story of American Lend-Lease to Russia

    This American policy of generosity immediately began to manifest itself. Billions of dollars of Russian Lend-Lease Were authorized. Even the deliberate sacrifice of American self-interest was evident in some of the orders received by U.S. military services. An order to the Air Service Command dated January 1, 1943, carried this astounding mandate: “The modification, equipment, and movement of Russian planes have given first priority, even over planes for the U.S. Army Forces.”
    The U.S. Congress was not quite as enthusiastic toward Russia as the diplomatic strategists. Congress specifically restricted Russian Lend-Lease to materials to be used for military action against the Axis enemy. It forbade the shipment of materials which would be used for civilian personnel or the rehabilitation of Russia after the war. This was in no way designed to show unfriendliness toward the Russian people. It was simply an expression of belief that U.S. resources should not be used to promote Communist Russia into a world power. Some day the Russian people would perhaps regain their freedom, and that would be the time to share resources. Meanwhile, non-military generosity would only strengthen the post-war position of the Communist dictatorship.
    In spite of these legal restrictions, however, the uninhibited generosity of the diplomats dominated Lend-Lease rather than Congress or the leaders of the Military.
    General John R. Deane, for example, who was in Moscow as Chief of the U.S. Military Mission, turned down a Russian request for 25 large 200-horsepower Diesel marine engines because the engines already sent to Russia were rusting in open storage and from all appearances were simply being stockpiled for post-war use. Furthermore, the engines were badly needed by General MacArthur in the South Pacific. After hearing General Deane’s decision, the Russians appealed to Harry Hopkins (head of the Lend-Lease program) who over-ruled General Deane. During the following two years a total of 1,305 of these engines were sent to Russia at a cost to the American people of $30,745,947.
    After Pearl Harbor, when Navy officials were given the highest possible priority for copper wire to be used in the repair of U.S. battleships, they found the Russians had an even higher priority for an order of copper wire which was apparently to be used for post-war rehabilitation of Russian cities. The wire was turned over to the Russians in such quantities that it had to be stored on a 20-acre lot in Westchester County, New York, where it remained until the war was nearly over. A few months before the Armistice, it was shipped to Russia for the rehabilitation of their communications systems.
    Since the close of World War II, the American people have gradually learned the details concerning the flood of goods and treasure which went to Russia under Lend-Lease. The lists which have been published are from Russian records. They were secured by an American officer, Major George Racey Jordan, who was the official U.S. expediter for Russian Lend-Lease at the Great Falls Air Base in Montana. An analysis of these lists showed that according to Russian records, the Communists received over eleven billion dollars worth of Lend-Lease and that in spite of the legal restrictions against it, the diplomatic strategists included $3,040,423,000 worth of American goods, paid for by American taxpayers, which definitely does not appear to be authorized by the Lend-Lease act. These lists show shipments of vast stockpiles of “non-munition” chemicals together with voluminous shipments of cigarette cases, phonograph records, ladies’ compacts, sheet music, pianos, antique furniture, $388,844 worth of “notions and cheap novelties,” women’s jewelry, household furnishings, fishing tackle, lipstick, perfumes, dolls, bank vaults, playground equipment, and quantities of many other types of illegal, non-military merchandise.
    Students of Russian wartime history point out that American Lend-Lease began feeding into Russia at a time when she was almost prostrate. She had lost most of her crops as a result of the scorched earth campaign designed to slow Nazi advances. Even with Lend-Lease food the troops had to be rationed at a bare subsistence level so it is likely that without
    Lend-Lease the Russian resistance might well have collapsed. Furthermore, the Germany occupation cut the Russians off from many of their major industrial centers. In addition to U.S. planes, munitions, chemicals, tools, heavy machinery, and so forth, the amazing American “Arsenal of Democracy” provided Russia with 478,899 motor vehicles. This was nearly half of all the motor vehicles used on the Soviet front.
    It is an interesting commentary on the Communist psychology to note that the United States never received an official “thank you” from Russia for the eleven billion dollars worth of Lend-Lease goods which were paid for and literally “donated” to the Communist Motherland by the American people. Stalin’s excuse was that his government felt the United States made an error when it stopped Lend-Lease at the close of the war. He made it icy clear that under the circumstances his people did not feel an expression of gratitude would be either appropriate or justifiable.

Russian Attempts to Secure the Secrets of the Atomic Bomb

    Throughout World War II Russian espionage vigorously concentrated on the most important thing to come out of the War—the harnessing of atomic energy. A two-pronged thrust was employed to get the information as it was developed: one by espionage and the other by diplomatic channels. For a time the diplomatic channels were particularly productive, not only for atomic energy secrets, but for all military and industrial information.
    Major Jordan first became aware of this at the Great Falls Lend-Lease Air Base when the Russians began bringing large quantities of cheap, black suitcases along with them whenever they left the United States. They refused to let Jordan see the contents on the grounds that the suitcases were pieces of “diplomatic luggage” and therefore immune to inspection.
    One night the Russian commander at the base almost demanded that Jordan go into Great Falls as his dinner guest. Jordan was suspicious but accepted. About midnight he received an excited call that a plane had just landed and the Soviets were going to take off for Russia without waiting for Jordan’s clearance. Jordan raced back to the airfield. Sure enough, the plane was a joker. In it were fifty black suitcases protected by armed Russian guards. Jordan ordered a GI to hold the guards at bay and shoot to kill if they forcibly interfered with his inspection.
    Jordan later testified under oath before a congressional committee that he found each suitcase to contain a file of information about U.S. industry, harbors, troops, railroads, communications, and so forth. In one suitcase Jordan said he found a letter on White House stationery signed by Harry Hopkins and addressed to the number three man in the Russian hierarchy. Attached to the letter was a map of the top-secret Manhattan (atomic energy) Project, together with descriptive data dealing with atomic energy experiments! One folder in this suitcase had written on it, “From Hiss.” At the time Jordan did not know who Hiss was. Inside the folder were numerous military documents. Another folder contained Department of State documents. Some of them were letters from the U.S. embassy in Moscow giving confidential evaluations of the Russian situation and detailed analytical impressions of Russian officials. Now they were being secretly shipped back for the Russians to read.
    When Major Jordan reported the facts to Washington he was severely criticized for holding up the plane!
    In April, 1943, the Russian liaison officer told Jordan that a very special shipment of experimental chemicals was coming through. The Russian officer called Harry Hopkins in Washington and then turned the phone over to Jordan. Major Jordan reports that Harry Hopkins told him: “I don’t want you to discuss this with anyone, and it is not to go on the records. Don’t make a big production of it, but just send it through quietly, in a hurry.”
    The Russian officer later told Jordan the shipment was “bomb powder” and Jordan saw an entry in the officer’s folder which said “Uranium.” The shipment came through June 10, 1943. It was the first of several. At least 1,465 pounds of uranium salts are said to have been sent through to the Soviet Union. Metallurgists estimate that this could be reduced to 6.25 pounds of fissionable U-235. This is two pounds more than would be necessary to produce an atomic explosion. On July 24, 1945, at Potsdam, President Truman announced to Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin that the United States had finally developed a highly secret bomb. He told them this bomb possessed almost unbelievable explosive power. Secretary of State James F. Byrnes was watching Stalin and noted that he did not seem particularly surprised, or even interested in the announcement. Four years later (September 23, 1949), President Truman announced to the world that Russia had successfully exploded an atomic bomb—years ahead of U.S. expectations! Some officials wondered why, with all the help they received, the Russians had not exploded one long before.

Closing Months of World War II

    Historically, Russia has always been stronger in defense than in attack. During World War II the Russian people displayed an incredible will to resist during the days when even Hitler thought they were completely beaten. They suffered astronomical losses: 7 million dead (including 2.5 million Russian Jews exterminated by the Nazis and 1.5 million other Soviet civilians killed by the Germans), while approximately 3 million died in combat. From 3 to 4 million were taken prisoners but the number of wounded and maimed is not given. As a result of the war there was a destruction of 1,700 Russian towns, 70,000 villages and hamlets, 31,000 factories, 84,000 schools, 40,000 miles of track, in addition to the destruction of 7 million horses, 17 million head of cattle, and 20 million hogs. This represented about one-fourth of all Soviet property.
    There is no way of knowing whether or not Stalin ever forced himself to acknowledge it, but this almost incomprehensible toll of monstrous destruction might very well have been avoided if Stalin had not made the insidious mistake of deliberately signing the pact with Hitler in 1939 which triggered the opening campaign of World War II. There are leading political authorities who now state that if Hitler had been forced to delay his campaign into Poland because of a threat from Russia, it would have given the Western Nations sufficient time to build up their forces, and by restoring a balance power in Europe the entire saga of World War II might have occurred.

U.S. Policy of Coexistence Enters the Fourth Stage

    During World War II the President of the United States received two different interpretations of Communist policy and two different recommendations as how best to deal with the Communist leaders. One group of advisers took the historical approach, accepted the Communists as the world revolutionists which they described themselves to be, and assumed that their past conduct was the safest criterion of how they might be expected to act in the future. A second group of advisers presented a much more idealistic view of the Communist leaders. They wanted people to forget the past; to look upon Communist boorishness as nothing more than political immaturity, something which could be changed by patient endurance and expansive generosity.
    To this second group, there rapidly gravitated not only theoretical idealists, but men and women who were later found to be deeply involved in outright subversion against the United States government.{77} Historians now find it difficult to define just where idealism left off and subversion took over. In any event this was the group which dominated the Lend-Lease program and set the stage for policies which controlled U.S. relations with Russia for approximately fifteen years.
    This was also the group of presidential advisers who acclaimed with the greatest enthusiasm the slightest suggestion that the Communists were “changing.” For example, when the Communist International was disbanded May 22, 1943, this group hailed the announcement as incontrovertible evidence that the Communist leaders had renounced world conquest. Others suspected that this was merely a propaganda device. The latter proved to be the case, as Igor Gouzenko, the former Russian code clerk, testified: “The announcement of the dissolution of the Comintern (Communist International) was probably the greatest farce of the Communists in recent years. Only the name was liquidated, with the object of reassuring public opinion in the democratic countries. Actually the Comintern exists and continues its work, because the Soviet leaders have never relinquished the idea of establishing a Communist dictatorship.”{78}
    When many high officials of the President’s own party saw the dangerous direction in which U.S. policy was moving, they hastened to warn him. One interesting conversation took place during the war between the President and his good friend, William C. Bullitt, whom the President had sent to Russia as the first U.S. ambassador in 1933. Mr. Bullitt had just finished outlining to the President many of his personal experiences with Joseph Stalin, and had warned the President to keep up his guard when dealing with the Communist leaders.
    “Bill,” replied the President, “I don’t dispute your facts; they are accurate. I don’t dispute the logic of your reasoning. I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. Harry (Hopkins) says he’s not, and that he doesn’t want anything but security for his country. And I think that if I give him everything that I can, and ask nothing from him in return… he won’t try to annex anything, and will work with me for a world peace and democracy.”{79}
    The philosophy reflected in this statement is the keynote to an understanding of the conferences held by the “Big Three” toward the close of the war. By that time the diplomatic strategy of the United States (which began with simple co-existence in 1933) had passed into its fourth phase—the complete acceptance of the Russian Communists as full partners the plans for preserving future world peace.

Creation of the United Nations

    During August and September 1944, the representatives of Britain, China, Russia and the United States, met at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, D.C. At this conference the constitutional foundation for the United Nations was laid. In it Russia was not only made a full partner, but a dominant stockholder. A most significant development was the fact that, while other nations objected, Russia insisted on the right to exercise the veto power even if she were a party to the dispute. This violated the very foundation of international jurisprudence but the democracies consented. They were ready to pay almost any price to get Russia to participate.
    Once the tide of war had turned, there was an increased arrogance in Soviet treatment of U.S. officials. General Deane wrote to Washington about Lend-Lease and said: “Even our giving is viewed with suspicion…. The party of the second part (the U.S.) is either a shrewd trader to be admired or a sucker to be despised…. I have yet to see the inside of a Russian home. Officials dare not become too friendly with us, and others are persecuted for this offense.”{81}
    By the following April the Prime Minister of England was becoming fed up with the whole Russian picture. He appealed to President Roosevelt: “I deem it of the highest importance that a firm and blunt stand should be made at this juncture by our two countries in order that the air may be cleared and they (the Russians) realize that there is a point beyond which we will not tolerate insult.”{82}
    There is some evidence that the President of the United States was also beginning to awaken to the realities of the situation, but one week after this message was written, President Roosevelt died. The monumental task of finishing the war and building the United Nations fell into the hands of those who still insisted that the Russians were being misunderstood and that a successful partnership could be definitely achieved.
    On April 25, 1945, 1,400 representatives from 46 nations met in San Francisco, and after due deliberation agreed upon a United Nations Charter.
    Anyone familiar with the Communist Constitution of Russia will recognize in the United Nations Charter a similar format. It is characterized by a fervent declaration of democratic principles which are sound and desirable; this is then followed by a constitutional restriction or procedural limitation which completely nullifies the principles just announced. For example, the Russian Constitution provides for universal suffrage and voting by secret ballot. Then, in Article 126, it provides for a single political party (the Communist Party) which will furnish the voters with a single roster of candidates. This, of course renders completely meaningless all the high-flown phrases dealing with universal suffrage and secret ballots. Freedom of the press is likewise guaranteed, and then wiped out by the provision that all writings must be “in the interest of the workers.”
    In precisely this same way the United Nations Charter provides for “the sovereign equality of all its members” (Article 1) and then sets up a Security Council which is dominated by five permanent members (Britain, Russia, China, France and the United States) any one of which can nullify the expressed desires of all other member nations by the simple device of exercising the veto power.
    The Charter allows each member nation to have one vote in the General Assembly. This sounds like democracy, but then it provides that the General Assembly can do nothing more than make recommendations, and must refer all of its suggestions to the Security Council for action! (Articles 11–14). This makes the Security Council the only legally binding legislative body in the U.N. To make this absolutely crystal clear the Charter provides in Article 24 that any nation which joins the U.N. must “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”
    This means that in spite of the bold declaration that the U.N. is “based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” the cold fact is that the members are all committed to obey the will of a handful of nations in the Security Council. As the next ten years dramatically demonstrated, all members of the U.N.—particularly the little nations—could be subjected to the choke-hold which the USSR had provided for herself by holding membership in the Security Council and dominating that body through the frequent use of the veto power.
    The Charter further provides that membership in the U.N. shall be restricted to “peace-loving” states (Article 4). This was thoroughly discussed at San Francisco, and Secretary John Foster Dulles has emphasized that the U.N. was designed to be a collective organization of friendly nations to preserve peace rather than an assemblage of all the nations in the world. In other words, the United Nations was built on the premise that its members would only include those nations which had had a demonstrated history of being “peace-loving.” Eight years after the adoption of the U.N. Charter, Secretary lies explained to the American Bar Association why the United Nations had failed to preserve the peace: “Now we see the inadequacy of an organization whose effective functioning depends upon cooperation with a nation which is dominated by international party seeking world dominion.”{83}
    As some authorities have since pointed out, the U.N. provided for a world-wide police commission and then made the top international gangster a member of that commission. It was like setting up a fire department to put out the conflagration of war and then putting the world-community’s foremost firebug on the department. From the point of view of the little nations, it was like promising to provide a good shepherd to protect the small, weak countries, and then appointing the wolf and all her pups to protect the flock.
    All this became apparent during the “decade of disillusionment” which immediately followed. In 1945, however, a war-weary, hopeful free world felt the United Nations was all it purported to be—an organization for collective security designed to stand like a bastion against aggressor nations.

Communist Attitudes at the Close of World War II

    A clear indication of what the United States could expect from post-war Communism came on May 24, 1945, when the leading French Communist, Jacques Duclos, wrote a letter on behalf of his Russian superiors demanding that the Communists in the United States be required to immediately abandon their policy of friendly collaboration with capitalism and return to their historic mission of world revolution. Back in 1940 the Communist Party of America had formally withdrawn from the Third International to avoid having to register as a foreign agent under the Voorhis Act. Later the Communist Party of America was dissolved in an attempt to attach the Communist membership to one of the major U.S. political parties. For this purpose they called themselves the Communist Political Association.
    All of this twisting and turning was in complete harmony with Soviet policy until 1945. After World War II, the announced policy reverted to traditional Marxism. To justify the complete switch in policy, Earl Browder, the American Communist leader, was accused of being personally responsible for the “errors” of the former policy. He was expelled from the party.
    It is no longer difficult to understand why Moscow wanted men like Foster at the head of its Communist parties throughout the world. We now know that the Russian leaders approached the conclusion of the world’s greatest war with the conviction that World War III might be in the near offing. In their secret circles they hopefully speculated that this next war might be Communism’s final death struggle with capitalism.
    Igor Gouzenko states that after the armistice, he and the other employees in the Russian Embassy at Ottawa, Canada, were warned against an attitude of complacency. Colonel Zabotin gathered the employees together and then referred to the free-world democracies as follows: “Yesterday they were our allies, today they are our neighbors, tomorrow they will be our enemies!”{85}
    Remarkable insight into the Communist mind during this Period can also be obtained from a speech delivered to an intimate circle of Communist leaders by Marshal Tito, head the party in Yugoslavia:
    “The second capitalist war, in which Russia was attacked by her most dangerous and strongest fascist enemy, has ended in a decisive victory for the Soviet Union. But this does not mean that Marxism has won a final victory over capitalism…. Our collaboration with capitalism during the war which has recently ended, by no means signifies that we shall prolong our alliance with it in the future. On the contrary, the capitalist forces constitute our natural enemy despite the fact that they helped us to defeat their most dangerous representative. It may happen that we shall again decide to make use of their aid, but always with the sole aim of accelerating their final ruin….
    “The atomic bomb is a new factor by means of which the capitalist forces wish to destroy the Soviet Union and the victorious prospects of the working class. It is their only remaining hope…. Our aims have not been realized in the desired form because the construction of the Atomic bomb was speeded up and perfected as early as 1945. But we are not far from the realization of our aims. We must gain a little more time for the reorganization of our ranks and the perfecting of our preparations in arms and munitions.
    “Our present policy should, therefore, be to follow a moderate line, in order to gain time for the economic and industrial reconstruction of the Soviet Union and of the other states under our control. Then the moment will come when we can hurl ourselves into the battle for the final annihilation of reaction.”{86}
    Such were the reflections of Communist leaders as they emerged from World War II as the second greatest political power on earth. They felt Communism might have unprecedented possibilities as the “brave new world” entered the post-war period.

Communist Attacks on the Free World During the Post-War Period

    Stalin’s plan for the expansion of Communism after the war involved three techniques: the creation of pro-Communist puppet governments in occupied territory, the military conquest of new territory by satellite armies, and the further infiltration of free countries by Soviet espionage and propaganda organizations.
    In this chapter we shall try to account for the phenomenal success of these three programs. It should provide the answers to these questions:
    • Toward the last part of World War II did Allied leaders begin to suspect a Russian double cross? Why did Harry Hopkins make a special trip to Moscow a few months before he died?
    • How did the free world lose 100,000,000 people to the Iron Curtain through Soviet strategy?
    • How did the free world lose 450,000,000 more people through the conquest of China? What did the Wedemeyer Report reveal?
    • Do you think diplomatic blunders may have encouraged the attack on South Korea? What significance do you attach to Owen Lattimore’s amazing statement in 1949: “The thing to do is let South Korea fall, but not to let it look as if we pushed her”?
    • What was the turning point in the Korean war which gave the U.N. forces their first military advantage?
    • After the Korean cease-fire in 1953, what did the U.S. Secretary of State say to indicate that the U.S. was abandoning a twenty-year policy of appeasement?
    • What was the role of the FBI in the “Battle of the Underground?”
    • Why did the U.S. not do more to prevent the loss of French Indo-China?
    • In the dispute over Formosa, why did the Red Chinese call the U.S. a paper tiger?
    • What did Dimitry Z. Manuilsky say about the strategy of “peaceful coexistence”?

The Decay in U.S.-Soviet Relations at the End of World War II

    The evidence of Communist subversion and aggression became so apparent toward the close of World War II that even some of those who had staked their professional careers on the friendship of the Soviet leaders began to sense a feeling of alarm. This included Harry Hopkins. Within a month after the death of President Roosevelt, Hopkins became so concerned with developments that he hurriedly made arrangements to see Stalin in person. At the time Hopkins was critically ill, with only a short time to live, but he forced himself to make this final pilgrimage to Moscow to try and salvage some of the remnants from the wreckage of what was to have been a master plan for post-war peace.
    When he arrived in Moscow, however, Hopkins was confronted by a blunt and angry Stalin. We are indebted to former Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes, for an account at what happened.{87} Stalin made an amazingly antagonistic verbal assault on the handling of the program Hopkins had sponsored for Russia—the program of Lend-Lease.
    The shock of this attack may be better appreciated when it is remembered that Hopkins considered himself to be the best friend the Soviets had in America. He and his associates had just spent billions of dollars and risked an atomic war to try and create a Russo-American partnership for peace. Probably Hopkins would not have been more startled by the treatment he received if Stalin had physically slapped him in the face.
    In reply, Hopkins vigorously pointed out “how liberally the United States (through him) had construed the law in sending foodstuffs and other non-military items to their aid.” Stalin admitted all of this but roughly crossed it off by saying the Soviets still could not forgive the United States for terminating Lend-Lease after V-Day in Europe.
    At the moment it seemed that nothing would pacify Stalin but a brand new round of wide-open American Lend-Lease generosity; otherwise he apparently could think of no particular reason for even pretending to want the friendship of the United States any longer. He even threatened to boycott the United Nations Conference which was soon to be held in San Francisco.
    For reasons which now seem quite incongruous, Hopkins continued to plead with Stalin to stay on the team and reiterated the many concessions which he was sure the Communists could gain by taking part in the United Nations organization. Like a pouting and spunky child, Stalin assumed an air of studied reluctance, but gradually gave in. By agreeing to join the United Nations Conference at San Francisco he wanted Hopkins to know he was doing the United States a tremendous favor.
    Finally, Hopkins returned home. By the time of his death in January, 1946, there was already ample evidence that peace-loving nations were in for a violent and stormy era as a result of the strategy of writing in the Soviets as full-fledged partners of the free world.

The Free World Loses 100 Million People

    Obviously, a primary object of World War II was to liberate all of the countries occupied by the Axis powers. Russia was well aware that if she were to expand her influence into these liberated nations—particularly the ones which bordered the USSR—she would have to do it in such a way as to create the illusion that these nations had gone Communistic through their own political self-determination. It became established Soviet policy to take secret but highly active interest in the affairs of these countries—to make them “voluntary” satellites through infiltration and subversion.
    In some nations this plan brought immediate results. For example, it made satellites of Yugoslavia and Albania almost overnight because the Communists had captured the leadership of the anti-Nazi, anti-Fascist resistance movements during the war and as soon as these countries were liberated the Communists demanded the right to set up the new governments. Later, Stalin tried to purge Tito’s regime but found it would not purge. Tito temporarily pulled Yugoslavia away from the Russian orbit but remained openly devoted to Marxism in spite of generous U.S. economic aid.
    Russia also found a highly favorable condition for her schemes in the Eastern European countries. As a result of the military campaigns carried out by Soviet troops during the final phase of World War II, Red forces occupied all of Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and most of what is now East Germany.
    The Soviet strategy for the “peaceful” conquest of these countries prior to withdrawing the Red troops was to encourage the creation of coalition governments including only left-wing parties. This gave the impression that these nations had some semblance of representative government. The next step was to maneuver Communists into all key governmental positions. The third and final step was to force all parties to join in a “monolithic bloc” with the Communist leaders assuming complete dictatorial power.
    Through this carefully executed maneuver the complete subjugation of all these countries was completed by 1949. The Communist Iron Curtain came clanking down on all their western borders and the free world found itself completely cut off from any contact with these former allies who represented approximately 100 million people.

The Free World Loses China with Her 450 Million People

    At this same time there also came to the free world powers one of the most bitter lessons they had to learn in dealing with World Communism—the loss of China.
    After fighting the Japanese militarists for fourteen years, China had approached the end of World War II with high hopes. The war had been fought under a dictatorship led by Chiang Kai-shek but his Nationalist Government had promised to set up a democratic constitution as soon as national unity would permit. As the war ended Chiang Kai-shek ordered the restoration of civil rights and inaugurated freedom of the press.
    The Chinese leaders knew their greatest threat to peace was the small but well-trained army of Chinese Communists in the northwest; nevertheless, they went right ahead with their plans for a constitution which would allow the Communists, full representation but would require them to disband their armed forces. There was confidence that a representative government could be worked out for all parties in China if armed insurrection were eliminated. In fact, Chiang Kai-shek invited the Communist leader, Mao Tse-tung, to come to the capital and see if they could reach a peaceful settlement of their difference.
    Mao came. He promised to cooperate in setting up a democracy but Chiang Kai-shek and his aides were not at all impressed with his superficial display of professed sincerity. Chiang later promised his nervous associates that he would never relinquish his dictatorial powers until he was completely satisfied that the government was safely in the hands of a substantial majority of the people—not just some noisy militant minority.

Effect of the Yalta Agreement on Post-War China

    An early blow to China’s hopes for a post-war peace came when it was learned that back in February, 1945, British and American diplomatic leaders at Yalta had agreed to give Russia extensive property rights in Manchuria if the Soviets would join in the war against Japan. Chiang Kai-shek was outraged by this unilateral arrangement (China was never consulted) and he never ceased to blame much of the subsequent disaster on this initial blunder.
    The Yalta agreement allowed Russia to come racing into Manchuria (and North Korea) just six days before the Japanese capitulated. After a typically brutal Russian occupation, the Soviet troops fixed the Communist grip on this territory which the Japanese had extensively industrialized and which was one of the richest agricultural regions in all China. In fact, it was Manchuria that the Nationalists were expecting to use as the working base in bolstering China’s battered economy.
    However, after taking Manchuria, Stalin suddenly and unexpectedly agreed to withdraw his troops and recognize the Nationalist Government of China as the legal sovereign of that territory providing China would acknowledge Russia’s property rights in Manchuria which Stalin had previously demanded at Yalta. This consisted of half ownership in the Manchurian railroads and the right to lease Port Arthur as a Russian naval base. Under strong pressure from the United States and Great Britain, China signed this agreement with Russia on August 14, 1945.
    Almost immediately Chiang Kai-shek knew this was a serious mistake. The treaty was nothing but a Russian tool of strategy which legally codified the mistakes at Yalta. As Chiang Kai-shek had feared, the Russians operated the Manchurian railroads as though they owned them outright. They not only set up a naval base at Port Arthur, but arrogantly refused to allow the Chinese to use their own port of Dairen. Instead of evacuating Manchuria, the Soviets began looting the entire region of all its heavy industry and shipping it to Russia as “war booty.” This represented a stunning blow to China’s future economic recovery.
    But even more important than this was the Russians’ strategy of delaying the removal of their troops by various pretexts until the Chinese Communists could come in from the northwest and occupy Manchuria. As the Communists came in, the Russians turned over to them the vast quantities of ammunition and war material which they had seized from the Japanese.
    Consequently, when the Nationalists arrived to take over Manchuria, they were outraged to find that the Chinese Communists were already dug in. Immediately civil war loomed up as an inescapable consequence.

Chiang Kai-shek Attempts to Create A Democracy in China

    All of this was happening right at the time the Nationalists were trying to prepare China for a constitutional form of government. On his own initiative Chiang had set May 5, 1946, as the first meeting of the Chinese National Assembly in which all parties were to take part. But, of course, this entire program to unify and democratize China was seriously jeopardized by the outbreak of war in Manchuria. At this point the U.S. diplomats decided to take a hand.
    They had planned the United Nations to preserve world Peace and had insisted from the beginning that the Red leaders were potentially peaceful and had no territorial ambitions. Assuming this to be true they denounced Chiang for resisting the Chinese Reds. They accused him of creating new world tensions. General George C. Marshall was therefore sent over to China to stop the civil war.
    General Marshall arrived in January, 1946. What happened after that is a long series of incidents, each one tragically demonstrating the error of trying to incorporate the ideas of world revolutionists within the framework of representative government.
    The Communists demanded a coalition government but insisted on keeping their own private army. They wanted a voice in the government of all China, but would not allow the central government to have a voice in the affairs of Communist-occupied areas of China. They agreed to a cease-fire and then launched aggressive attacks as soon as it served their own advantage to do so. They agreed to help set up a State Council representing all parties and then advised at the last moment that they would not participate.
    When the date for the first National Assembly was postponed so the Communists could participate, they used it as an excuse to accuse Chiang Kai-shek of setting the new date without proper authorization. After a second postponement, with the Communists still refusing to participate, the National Assembly finally convened on November 15, 1946, and a democratic constitution was approved and adopted on Christmas Day. But the Communists would have no part of it.
    Chiang Kai-shek became completely convinced that the Communists would never negotiate a peaceful settlement but were out to win the whole domain of China by military conquest. He also believed the Communists could never represent the interests of China because their policies were created and imposed upon them by Moscow.
    Time was to prove this analysis correct, but U.S. diplomatic strategists were the last to be convinced—and then only after the Chinese mainland had been lost. Furthermore, Chiang could not convince the U.S. diplomatic corps that he was justified in striking back when the Communists attacked him. When he tried to regain the territory recently seized by Communists, it was described in Washington as “inexcusable aggression.”

Disaster Strikes Down an Old U.S. Ally

    Finally, in the summer of 1946, when the Communists had repeatedly violated the truce agreement, the Nationalists decided to vigorously counterattack and penetrate deep into Manchuria. The diplomats frantically ordered Chiang to stop, but he refused to do so. He said another truce would only allow the Communists time to re-group and come back even more fiercely than before. He also said it was his intention to continue the campaign to forcibly disarm the Communists and restore them to civilian status so that China could get on with her program of constitutional government without fear of constant insurrection.
    This line of reasoning did not appeal to the State Department. Three different times Chiang was ordered to issue an unconditional cease-fire. To make it stick a U.S. embargo was finally placed on all aid to China. Only after United States aid abruptly halted did Chiang reluctantly agree to a cease-fire. General Marshall stated: “As Chief of Staff I armed 39 anti-Communist divisions (in China), now with a stroke of the pen I disarm them.”
    This proved a great boon to the Communists. While the Nationalists were being held down by U.S. diplomatic pressure the Communists re-grouped their forces and prepared for the all-out campaign which later proved fatal to China. It is strange that even after Chiang had surrendered his own best judgment and issued a cease-fire, the U.S. embargo was not lifted. The Nationalist forces sat idly by, consuming many of their supplies which they feared would never be replaced. Later, when the Red tide had begun to roll in on Chiang, Congress did finally force through an “Aid to China” bill, but actual delivery of goods was not processed in time to be of any significant assistance.
    From 1947 on, the morale of the Nationalist army disintegrated. It seemed apparent to Chinese military leaders that they were the victims of Communist aggression on the one hand and the victims of a total lack of insight by U.S. and British diplomats on the other.
    After Chiang issued his unconditional cease-fire, General Marshall appealed to the Communist leaders to reopen negotiations for settlement. The Communists replied, but talked as though they were victors and made demands which even General Marshall labeled as completely unreasonable. They wanted all the rich areas of Manchuria from which they had just been driven. They wanted the National Assembly dissolved and demanded a predominant place in the proposed coalition government.
    It was obvious that any hope of settlement under such circumstances was impossible. General Marshall accepted this as a Communist pronouncement that the Communists were no longer interested in mediation and he therefore ended his mission by having President Truman call him home. He returned to America in January, 1947, and immediately became the new U.S. Secretary of State.

The Wedemeyer Report

    There were many leaders in the United States Government who were completely dissatisfied with the way the Chinese Civil War had been handled. Therefore, in the summer of 1947, General Albert C. Wedemeyer was sent to Asia under Presidential orders to find out what was wrong in China. Upon his return he submitted a report which was extremely critical of the entire formula for peace which had been followed by General Marshall and the diplomatic corps. He indicated that not only had the interests of free China been violated, but the self-interests of the United States and all her Allies had been subordinated to the whims of the Communists. He recommended prompt and voluminous aid to the Nationalist Government and predicted that the situation could still be salvaged if help were provided in time.
    Unfortunately, this report fell into the hands of the very people whom General Wedemeyer had criticized. Consequently, it was buried in department files for nearly two years and was not brought to light until long after it was too late to take the action it recommended.
    Meanwhile, the forces of collapse were rapidly moving toward their inexorable climax. During 1947 and the early part of 1948 the armies of Chiang Kai-shek held up remarkably well, but toward the latter part of 1948, the lack of supplies and the internal disintegration of the Chinese economy took its toll. The fall of the Nationalist forces was not gradual—it was sudden and complete. Many thousands abandoned their positions and raced southward in disorganized confusion but other thousands threw down their arms and surrendered to Chinese Communists on the spot.
    By September, 1949, the Communist leaders were already wildly celebrating their victory as they set up the “People’s Republic of China.” Shortly afterwards Chiang acknowledged he was temporarily beaten and abandoned the mainland of China in order to flee with the straggling remnants of his army to Formosa.

The State Department White Paper of 1949

    The fall of free China produced a wave of boiling indignation throughout the United States. Both political leaders and lay citizens felt that somehow an old ally had been subverted or betrayed. At the time few Americans were really aware of what was involved in the Chinese debacle, but they knew Chiang Kai-shek and America’s interests had suffered a catastrophic defeat. There was widespread demand for the facts.
    The men who had engineered the fatal Chinese policy quickly collaborated on a report designed to justify their handling of America’s interests in the Far East. It was called “United States Relations With China” and was published as a “White Paper” in 1949. To many people the arguments in this paper were highly persuasive, but not to all; in fact, the loss of China brought a startling awakening to some of those who had been with General Marshall and had trusted the Communists almost to the very last.
    One of these was America’s ambassador to China during that critical period, Dr. John Leighton Stuart.{88} As a former missionary to China and president of Yenching University; he could not help but evaluate the fall of China as a vast human disaster. He criticized himself for having a part in it and censured his colleagues for trying to cover up their mistakes in the White Paper.
    Dr. Stuart frankly declared: “We Americans (who were carrying out the China policy) mainly saw the good things about the Chinese Communists, while not noticing care fully the intolerance, bigotry, deception, disregard for human life, and other evils which seem to be inherent in any totalitarian system. We kept Communist meanings for such adjectives as progressive, democratic, liberal, also bourgeois, reactionary, imperialist, as they intended we should do. We failed to realize fully the achievements to date and the potentialities of Chinese democracy. Therefore, we cannot escape a part of the responsibility of the great catastrophe—not only for China, but also for America and the free world—the loss of the Chinese mainland.”
    Concerning the White Paper he said: “I was, in fact, merely one of many persons who were perplexed and filled with apprehension by what they found in this extraordinary book…. It is clear that the purpose was not to produce a ‘historian’s history’ but to select materials which had been used in making the policy in effect at the moment. What had been omitted were materials rejected in the making of policy, materials which had not been relied upon.”
    This had been General Wedemeyer’s complaint. The diplomatic strategists were not willing to neither recognize the realities of the situation nor reverse their evaluation of Communist leaders even though the evidence of duplicity was everywhere.

An Amazing Development

    By 1949 there was little excuse for any alert American to further deceived by Communist strategy. Dozens of American-Communist spies had been exposed, the leading American Communists had been arrested by the FBI and convicted of conspiring to overthrow the U.S. Government by violence, Whittaker Chambers, Elizabeth Bentley and a swarm of exCommunist agents had laid bare their souls, the Western Allies had gone through the vicious squeeze play of the Berlin blockade and the United States had spent billions in foreign aid to keep Russia from consuming all of Europe the same way she had taken over China. But in spite of all this, a meeting was sponsored by the State Department in October, 1949, which almost defies explanation.
    It was held for the announced purpose of deciding what the “experts” believed should be done in the Far East. The meeting was presided over by Philip Jessup of the State Department, and those in attendance included not only State Department officials, but many select guests who were interested in Asia. Dr. John Leighton Stuart was present and afterwards expressed deep apprehension concerning the slant of the entire discussion. Harold Stassen was also present and later testified that the majority present favored the following policies:
    1. European aid should be given priority over Asia.
    2. Aid to Asia should not be started until after a “long and careful study.”
    3. Russian Communists should be considered “not as aggressive as Hitler” and “not as apt to take direct military action to expand their empire.”
    4. Communist China should be recognized by the U.S.
    5. Britain and India should be urged to follow suit in recognizing the Chinese Communists.
    6. The Chinese Communists should be allowed to take over Formosa.
    7. The Communists should be allowed to take over Hong Kong from Britain if the Communists insisted.
    8. Nehru should not be given aid because of his “reactionary and arbitrary tendencies.”
    9. The Nationalist blockade of China should be broken and economic aid sent to the Communist mainland.
    10. No aid should be sent to Chiang or to the anti-Communist guerillas in South China.
    Even if there had been no such identification, the glaring truth which every man at the conference should have known was the fact that this entire list of policies was a car bon copy of the prevailing “party line” coming out of Moscow. For months these very policies had been hammered out in every edition of the Communist press. It was a singular commentary on the judgment and professional discernment of those officials who fell in with these fantastic recommendations—particularly in the light of the provocative and inflammatory policies which Russia was using at that very moment to threaten nations in nearly every region of the free world.
    Three months after this conference, the new Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, announced several policies portending the loss of Formosa and the liquidation of the Chinese Nationalists by the Communists. First, he overruled the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (to give strong military aid to Chiang) by announcing on January 12, 1950, that the principles itemized above as point No. 6 and point No. 10 was to be official U.S. policy. He also stated that the U.S. defense perimeter in the Pacific did not include either Formosa or South Korea. He stated that if an attack should occur outside the U.S. defense perimeter “the initial reliance must be on the people attacked to resist it.” Then he suggested that they could appeal to the United Nations.
    This was simply a blunt statement that the U.S. diplomats were abandoning Formosa and Korea. This announcement was shocking to many students of the Far East, not only because the policy violated U.S. self-interest, but because it literally invited Communist attack on these free-world allies by giving advance notice that these areas could be invaded without interference from the United States.
    It took just six months for the Communists to select and prepare their point of attack. They chose the practically defenseless territory of South Korea as the first theater of war.

The Communist Attack on South Korea

    It will be recalled that the Yalta agreement allowed Russia to take over North Korea at the same time the Soviets occupied Manchuria. As elsewhere, the Russians did not withdraw their troops until a strong Communist puppet government was firmly entrenched. As for South Korea, U.S. forces occupied the territory up to the 38th parallel.
    During 1949 a United Nations mandate required both Russia and the U.S. to withdraw their troops. The Russians left behind them a powerful North Korean Red Army consisting of 187,000 well-trained and well-equipped troops, 173 Russian tanks, quantities of Russian-built artillery and 200 Russian planes. On the other hand, South Korea was a new-born Republic with an army of 96,000 men who were poorly equipped with practically no tanks, anti-tank weapons, heavy artillery or fighter planes. This meant that by the end of 1949 South Korea was even more vulnerable to attack from North Korea than Formosa was from Communist China. And the Washington diplomats had assured both Formosa and Korea that in case of attack they definitely could not expect any military help from the United States. As spokesman for the diplomatic left-wing contingent, Owen Lattimore explained the situation: “The thing to do is let South Korea fall, but not to let it look as if we pushed it.”{90}
    In the early dawn of Sunday, June 25, 1950, 8 divisions of the North Korean Red Army spilled across the 38th parallel and plunged southward toward the city of Seoul. Frantic calls went out from President Sigmund Rhee to the Security Council of the United Nations, to President Truman in Washington and to General Douglas MacArthur in Japan. All three responded. The Security Council pronounced North Korea guilty of a breach of the peace and ordered her troops back to the 38th parallel. (If Russia had been represented, she no doubt would have vetoed this action, but the Soviet delegates were boycotting the Security Council because China continued to be represented by the Nationalists rather than by the Chinese Communists.)
    General MacArthur responded by flying to Korea and reporting the desperate situation to Washington. President Truman responded by completely reversing the policy of his diplomatic advisers and ordering General MacArthur to pour U.S. ground troops in from Japan to stop the red tide. Thus the war began.
    For several weeks the situation looked very black. General MacArthur was made supreme commander of all United Nations forces, but at first these were so limited that the shallow beachhead at Pusan was about all they could hold. Then General MacArthur formulated a desperate plan. It was so difficult and illogical that he felt certain it would come to the Communists as a complete surprise. It did. On September 15, half way up the Korean Peninsula, the U.S. Navy (with two British carriers), the Air Force, Army and Marine Corps combined to launch an ingenious invasion at Inchon—a point where the 29-foot tide made a landing seem fantastic. Split-second timing permitted landings and the next thing the North Koreans knew they were trapped in the jaws of a mighty military pincer movement which cut across their supply lines and then rapidly closed in to wipe out the flower of the whole North Korean Army which, of course, was concentrated in the South. It was a magnificent victory.
    MacArthur then turned his armies toward the north. The ROK’s (South Koreans) went up the East Coast while other U.N. troops went up the West Coast. In doing this, General MacArthur was required to act on obscure hints rather than specific directions from Washington and the U.N. For a while it appeared that he might be forbidden to pursue the enemy forces retreating to the North.
    By the middle of October the coastal spearheads of the U.N. offensive were nearing the northernmost parts of Korea and the war appeared practically over. There was the immediate prospect of unifying the entire Korean Peninsula and setting up a democratic republic. Then, in November, unexpectedly disaster struck.
    From across the northern Korean boundary of the Yalu River came the first flood tide of what turned out to be a Chinese Communist army of one million men. As these troops came pouring into North Korea, the U.N. forces found themselves smothered by a great wave of fanatical, screaming, and suicidal humanity. MacArthur radioed to Washington: “We face an entirely new war!”
    The U.N. lines were cut to ribbons as their wall of defense was pushed back below the 38th parallel. General MacArthur could scarcely believe that the Chinese Communists would dare to risk the massive retaliation of the United States atomic bombing Air Force by this inexcusable assault on U.N. forces. However, what he did not know, but soon discovered, was the appalling fact that the Chinese had already been assured by their intelligence agents that the diplomats in Washington, London and New York were not going to allow MacArthur to retaliate with the U.S. Air Force. MacArthur was going to be restricted to “limited” warfare.
    It was in this hour that General MacArthur found that pro-Communist forces in the U.N. and left-wing sympathizers in the State Department were swamping the policies of the White House, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and those who had charge of the Korean War. He found that vast supplies which he badly needed were being diverted to Europe in accordance with point No. 1 of the State Department Conference. He was specifically restricted from following Chinese jets to their bases or bombing the Manchurian Railroad which was dumping mountains of supplies on the north banks of the Yalu River. He was forbidden to bomb the Yalu bridge over which troops and supplies were funneled, and his own supplies and replacements were cut back to the point where a counter-offensive became strategically difficult, if not impossible. The final blow came when the diplomats flatly turned down Chiang Kai-shek’s enthusiastic offer to send thousands of trained Nationalist troops from Formosa to fight in Korea.
    Over a period of four months General MacArthur watched the slaughter resulting from these stalemate policies. Finally, he could contain himself no longer. He violated a presidential gag order dated December 6, 1950, and answered a written inquiry from Congressman Joseph W. Martin concerning the inexplicable reverses which U.N. forces were suffering in Korea. The General’s letter giving recommendations for the winning of the war was read in Congress April 5, 1951, and five days later, President Truman ordered MacArthur summarily withdrawn from all commands.
    General MacArthur was relieved by General Matthew B. Ridgeway and he returned to the United States completely perplexed by the sudden termination of his military career. It was not until he landed in San Francisco and met the first wave of shouting, cheering, admiring fellow citizens that he realized that the sickness in the American body politic was not in all its members but only in one corner of its head.
    It will be recalled that two more years of military stagnation followed the recall of General MacArthur. Subsequently, hearings before Congressional committees permitted General Mark Clark, General George E. Stratemeyer, General James A. Van Fleet, Admiral Charles Joy and others to explain what happened to their commands in Korea. Each one verified the fact that the military was never permitted to fight a winning war. The diplomats had imposed upon them a theory called “Communist Containment,” which in actual operation resulted in the containment of the U.N. fighting forces instead of the Communists. It soon became apparent that the Korean War had been run by the same team and according to the same policies as those which resulted in the fall of China.
    It was also to be revealed at a later date that not only had the machinations of confused diplomats contributed to the semi-defeat in Korea but that fulltime under-cover agents of Soviet Russia had often stood at the elbows of officials in London, Washington and at the U.N. in New York to argue the Moscow line. Among the high-level spies for Russia during this critical period were two top British diplomats, Donald MacLean and Guy Burgess. MacLean was head of the American desk in Britain’s diplomatic headquarters at London; Burgess was the second secretary of the British Embassy in Washington. Both fled behind the Iron Curtain when they were about to be arrested by British Intelligence.

The Korean Armistice

    By the time President Eisenhower took office in January, 1953, there was a general feeling of gloom and despair concerning Korea. The people desperately desired to somehow stop the bloodshed. The hopes for peace were suddenly accelerated by a news flash of March 5 which swept round the world. Joseph Stalin was dead!
    The next day a new government took over in Russia and the leader turned out to be Stalin’s former secretary and the keeper of the secret Communist files—Georgi Malenkov. He had seized power by joining forces with Lavrenti P. Beria, head of the secret police who had an army of agents and troops numbering two million. Beria also had charge of the forced labor camps and supervised the atomic energy plants.
    However, when Malenkov and Beria took over as heirs of Stalin they immediately found themselves confronted by an explosive economic crisis. Pressure was building up inside Russia (and her satellites) just as it did in 1922 and again in 1932. Malenkov therefore offered respite to his people: “Let us now lay heavy industry aside for awhile. The people cannot eat heavy industry…. We should care for the needs of our people.” This was the beginning of a radical new policy for the USSR. At home the slogan was “More Food”; abroad Malenkov’s slogan was a campaign for “Peaceful Coexistence” with all the democracies.
    It was just twenty-three days after Stalin died that the Communist Chinese acted on their new signals and opened negotiations with the U.N. commanders for an armistice. This finally led to the signing of a truce on July 27, 1953. It became effective twelve days later.
    Thus ended the Korean War. It had cost the United States 20 billion dollars and more than 135,000 casualties. It had cost South Korea 1 million dead; another million maimed and wounded 9 million left homeless and saddled South Korea with 4 million refugees from North Korea.

The U.S. Summarily Abandons Its Twenty-Year Policy of Appeasement

    The people of the United States came out of the Korean War sadder and wiser than when they went in. Authorities have stated that two things happened in the Korean War which may yet brand it as the greatest blunder the Communist strategists ever made. First, it awakened the United States to the necessity of vigorously rearming and staying armed so long as the Communist threat exists. Second, it demonstrated to the people of the United States the inherent weaknesses of the United Nations. As Senator Robert A. Taft summed it up: “The United Nations serves a very useful purpose as a town meeting of the world… but it is an impossible weapon against forcible aggression.”
    Back in 1950 when the U.N. called upon all its members to furnish the means to resist the Communists, only 16 countries responded with the highly essential ingredient of armed troops. Altogether, these 16 nations furnished an army of 35,000 fighting men. Little South Korea maintained a fighting force of 400,000 men while the United States made up the difference by furnishing a force of 350,000. More than one million American GI’s had to be rotated through Korea to maintain the U.S. quota of military strength. In the mind of the average American the U.N. had therefore ceased to represent “collective security.”
    It was difficult to forget that while Americans and South Koreans were taking the brunt of the war, Russia and Britain had both violated the U.N. embargo by shipping strategic materials to Red China. On the floor of the U.N., Andrei Vishinsky had thrown down the Russian challenge: “The Soviet Union has never concealed the fact that it sold and continues to sell armaments to its ally, China!”
    The end of the Korean War marked the end of an era. During the summer of 1953 the United States served notice on Britain and France that if the Communists broke the cease-fire agreement in Korea we would immediately launch a major war against China. Both Britain and France agreed to support this stand. Many did not realize it at the time, but by this action the United States was passing the death sentence a twenty-year-old policy of Communist appeasement.

The Role of the FBI in the Battle of the Underground

    No one could have welcomed the end of appeasement with greater relief than John Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI and the number-one law enforcement personality in the United States. Since 1919 he had struggled to illuminate the minds of government leaders as well as the public generally concerning the conspiratorial nature of Communism. As an assistant to the Attorney General in 1919 he had prepared one of the first legal briefs reflecting the subversive aspects of the worldwide Communist movement.
    During the twenty years of appeasement, when many Americans had been lulled into a sense of security by the “sweet talk of Communist United Front propaganda,” John Edgar Hoover had struck out with two-listed blows at the Red menace which was gnawing at the vitals of American life:
    “The American Communist… must be placed in the same category as the Ku Klux Klan, the now defunct German-American Bund, and other totalitarian groups…. As common criminals seek the cover of darkness, Communists, behind the protection of false fronts, carry on their sinister and vicious program, intent on swindling and robbing Americans of their heritage of freedom.”
    John Edgar Hoover was a great disappointment to the Communists. In most countries the Red leaders had been able to completely discredit the agencies handling the police powers of government by blasting them with charges of corruption and violation of civil liberties. However, the Director of the FBI had spent his adult lifetime building the FBI so that the public would know that any such charges would be false and fraudulent.
    Therefore, the Communists were deeply disappointed with the results of their campaign to portray the FBI as an American Gestapo. The Communists leaders were further embittered by the knowledge that the FBI had trained its personnel to be just what governmental officers in a free nation should be—alert, intelligent, scientific and hard working. And what particularly frightened the Reds was the quiet methodical way in which Bureau agents went after subversives—all of which foreshadowed a day of reckoning for Communist strategists.
    It came July 20, 1948, when all the top leaders the Communist Party of America were indicted. The “Big Eleven” who stood trial were all convicted. Six of their attorneys were also fined or imprisoned for contemptuous conduct during the trial. Four of the eleven Communists jumped their $20,000 bail bond and the FBI had to launch an international investigation to have them returned.
    Shortly afterwards the Government became convinced that Soviet espionage agents had been stealing atomic information and the FBI was given jurisdiction. Within weeks the FBI had gristed through tons of records, interviewed hundreds of “restricted” employees at various atomic energy plants and emerged from the slow elimination process to point the finger of justice at a physicist, Klaus Fuchs, who had spent considerable time at Los Alamos. However, at that moment the German-born, naturalized Britisher was the dignified director of England’s atomic energy establishment at Harwell.
    Acting on the FBI tip that Klaus Fuchs was the principal suspect in the subversion of the free world’s monopoly of the atomic bomb, British Intelligence went to work. Within one month they saw some evidence that the FBI might be right. After another month they had no doubt about it. On February 3, 1949, the British announced that Fuchs had been arrested and had made a full confession.
    Fuch’s confession sent the FBI on another hunt. Fuchs said he gave packets of information dealing with the atomic bomb to a person known to him only as “Raymond.” This person had to be identified and located since he was apparently the courier who delivered the bomb secrets to the Soviet Consulate in New York. Although the FBI had nothing to start with but a physical description, a phony name and the possibility that the courier might be a chemist, agents finally came the right man. It was Harry Gold.
    Harry Gold confessed and this enabled the FBI to finally unravel the answer to a question which had puzzled the whole nation: “How did the Russians get hold of information on the ingenious trigger mechanism of the atomic bomb which should have taken the Russians many years to discover?” Harry Gold said they stole it. The FBI once more took up the trail and this time it led to the doorstep of two U.S. citizens, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.
    The investigation revealed that Julius Rosenberg had pressured his young brother-in-law, David Greenglass, to turn over to Harry Gold and himself all the basic information about the trigger device without which the bomb could not be exploded, David Greenglass worked at the atomic energy laboratory at Los Alamos and had a rather intimate knowledge of the construction of the bomb and the lens apparatus by which it was detonated. Greenglass was finally induced to draw up sketches of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima and to provide detailed drawings of the detonator lens. The Rosenbergs then channeled this information into the regular Russian espionage apparatus.
    As soon as the Communist scientists received this data they quickly closed the gap in the atomic race and exploded a Russian bomb. It will be recalled that this came as a great shock to the startled West. The Red leaders capitalized on this temporary advantage by rattling their atomic sabers and telling the Communist leaders in China and North Korea to start casting about for some early military conquest. Eagerly they went to work preparing for the Korean War. In fact, by the time Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had been convicted and were ready for sentence the United States was in the midst of the Korean conflict. Thousands of American lives were being sacrificed to hold back the tide of desolation which the Rosenbergs had helped to turn loose.
    Judge Irving Robert Kaufman looked down at this man and woman and said:
    “Plain, deliberate contemplated murder is dwarfed in magnitude by comparison with the crime you have committed…. I believe your conduct in putting into the hands of the Russians the A-bomb, years before our best scientists predicted Russia would perfect the bomb has already caused in my opinion, the Communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 and who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason. Indeed, by your betrayal you undoubtedly have altered the course of history….
    “What I am about to say is not easy for me. I have deliberated for hours, days and nights…. I have searched the records—I have searched my conscience—to find some reason for mercy—for it is only human to be merciful and it is natural to try and spare lives. I am convinced, however, that I would violate the solemn and sacred trust that the people of this land have placed in my hands were I to show leniency to the defendants Rosenberg. It is not in my power, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, to forgive you. Only the Lord can find mercy for what you have done… you are hereby sentenced to the punishment of death.”
    David Greenglass was sentenced to fifteen years.
    It was a tragic chapter in American history, but it verified Mr. Hoover’s original assertion that the Red leaders “carry on their sinister and vicious program, intent on swindling and robbing Americans of their heritage of freedom.”
    But John Edgar Hoover knew that the communist revolutionists would never try to strike their final, deadly blow at the United States as long as they were losing the battle of the underground. He also felt that carefully selected and carefully trained young Americans could match stratagems with the Red leaders and win. The history of the FBI during Mr. Hoover’s remarkable administration gives ample justification for his feelings of enthusiasm and complete confidence in the ultimate victory of America’s underground soldiers of freedom.

The Crack in the Iron Curtain

    By 1953 the Kremlin was not only suffering embarrassment abroad but a wide crack in the Iron Curtain revealed that the Communist empire was in desperate straits at home. The myth of Communist strength and unity was uncovered. East Germany riots broke out as the people faced tanks with bricks and bare hands. To make matters worse, insubordinate Russian officers and soldiers had to be executed for refusing to fire into the German crowds. A rash of uprisings also broke out in Czechoslovakia and threatened to break out in Poland, Bulgaria and the Ukraine.