OCR Text |
Show Page 6 The Utah Independent June 12, 1977 The Paper That Dares To Take A Stand TOP SECRET DOCUMENTS Continued from page 2, tember 30, 1950.) U.S. Alms: Spread of Freedom and Containment NSC 68 stated that the U.S. policy should include the development of a healthy international community" which included "backing the U.N. and developing the system." The U.S.s policy of containment "is one which seeks by all means short of war to (1) block further expansion of Soviet power, ( 2) expose the falsities of Soviet pretensions, (3) induce a retraction of the Kremlins control and influence and (4) in general, so foster the seeds of destruction within the Soviet system that the Kremlin is brought at least to the point of modifying its behavior to conform to generally accepted international standards." (21) "It was and continues to be cardinal in this policy that we possess superior overall power in ourselves or in dependable combination with other nations. One of the most important ingredients of power is military strength. (21) Containment not only involves military strength but also the door must be open to "the possibilities of negotiation with the U.S.S.R. A diplomatic freeze and we are in one now tends to defeat the very purposes of containment because it raises tensions at the same time that it makes Soviet retractions and adjustments in the direction of moderated behavior more difficulty. It also tends to inhibit our initiative and deprives us of opportunities for maintaining a moral ascendency in our struggle with the Soviet system. "In containment it is desirable to exert pressure in a fashion which will avoid so far as possible directly challenging Soviet prestige, to keep open the possibility for the U.S.S.R. to retreat before pressure with a minimum loss of face and to secure political advantage from the failure of the Kremlin to yield or to take advantage of the openings we leave it. " After discussing some special advantages accruing to our democratic way of life NSC 68 continued. These "capabilities within us constitute a great potential force in our international relations. The potential within us of bearing witness to the values by which we live holds promise for a dynamic manifestation to the rest of the world of the vitality of our system. The essential tolerance of our world outlook, our generous and constructive impulses and the absence of coveteousness in our international relations are assets of potentially enormous influence. "These then are our potential capabilities. Between them and our capabilities currently being utilized is a wide gap of unactualized power. In sharp contrast is the situation of the Soviet world Its capabilities are inferior to those of our Allies and to our own. But they are mobilized close to the maximum possible extent. The full power which resides within the American people will be evoked only through the traditional democratic process: This process requires, firstly, that sufficient information regarding the basic political, economic and military elements of the present situation be made publicly available so that an intelligent popular opinion may be formed Having achieved a comprehension of the issues now confronting this Republic, it will then be possible for the American people and the American Government to arrive at a consensus. Out of this common view will develop a determination of the national will and a solid resolute expression of that will. The initiative in this process lies with the Government. (23) No Easy Solution " . . there is no easy' solution and the only sure victory lies in the frustration of the Kremlin design by the steady development of the moral and material strength of the free world and its projection into the Soviet world in such a way as to bring about an internal change in the Soviet system. (53-5Inter-Americ- an like-mind- ed 4) build-u- p TOP 1 under pressure until we discover one day that we have sacrificed positions of vital interest ." (NSC 68-p. 4, Sep- "A more rapid The Paper That Dares To Take A Stand of the political economic, and military strength and thereby confidence in thefree world than is now contemplated is the only course which is consistent with progress toward achieving our fundamental purpose. The frustration of the Kremlin design requires the free world to develop a successfully functioning political and economic system and a vigorous political offensive against the Soviet Union. These, in turn, require an adequate military shield under which they can develop. It is necessary to have the military power to deter, if possible, Soviet expansion, and to d defeat, if necessary, aggressive Soviet or actions of a limited or total character. (54) . . . there is now and will be in the future no absolute defense. The history of war also indicates that a favorable decision can only be achieved through offensive action. Even a defensive strategy, if it is to be successful, calls not only far defensive farces to hold vital positions while mobilizing and preparing far the offensive, but also for offensive forces to Soviet-directe- attack the enemy and keep him off balance. " (54) It was also considered "mandatory that in building up our strength, we enlarge upon our technical superiority by an accelerated exploitation of the scientific potential of the United States and our allies." (55) . . . it is clear that a substantial and rapid building up of strength in the free world is necessary to support a firm policy intended to check and to roll back the Kremlins drive far world domination. (55) Through developing adequate strength there would be a favorable psychological impact on our country and our allies for "the revival of confidence and hope in the future. (55) NSC 68 called for "a renewed initiative in the cold war and a situation to which the Kremlin would find it expedient to accommodate itself, first by relaxing tensions and pressures and then by gradual withdrawal." (56) While increasing our own strength and determination "we should take dynamic steps to reduce the power and influence of the Kremlin inside the Soviet Union and other areas under its control The objective would be the establishment of friendly regimes not under the Kremlin domination. Such action is essential to engage the Kremlins attention, keep it off balance and farce an increased expenditure of Soviet resources in counteraction. In other words, it would be the current Soviet cold war technique used against the Soviet Union." (56) "A comprehensive and decisive program to win the peace and frustrate the Kremlin design should be so designed that it can be sustained far as long as necessary to achieve our national objectives. (56) It is recognized, of course, that any announcement of the recommended course of action could be exploited by the Soviet Union in its peace campaign and would have adverse psychological effects in certain parts of the free world until the necessary increase in strength had been achieved. Therefore, in any announcement of policy and in the character of the measures adopted, emphasis should be given to the essentially defensive character and care should be taken to minimize, so far as possible, unfavorable domestic and foreign reaction. " Budget "Budgetary considerations will need to be subordinated to the stark fact that our very independence as a nation may be at stake. (56) Civil Defense Program NSC 68 stressed that: "The civilian defense program should contribute to a reasonable assurance that, in the event of war, the United States would survive the initial blow and go on to the eventual attainment of its objectives. Civilian defense programs are designed to serve to minimize casualities in the event of attack, to provide emergency relief immediately after attack, and to help preserve the productive core of the nation. (68-See also p. 57) pp. Although we started such a program it has been abandoned. In the Mutual Assured Destruction agreement, well named MAD, we agreed with the Soviet Union not "to build any nationwide defenses against ballistic missiles. In effect, they agreed to leave their cities, industries, and their population exposed to the indescribable horror that might befall them if a nuclear war broke out." The U.S. reasoned," if you can call it reasoned," that this would deter the Soviet Union from an atomic attack on us because their cities and civilians would also be exposed to our retaliation. Furthermore, some of our politicians through misguided compassion or political buying of votes, thought that the money for civil defense could be better spent on welfare programs. Of course, welfare programs will not help people upon whose defenselessness heads the USSR-sen- t atomic bombs. As Clare Boothe Luce pointed out: Five years have passed since the U.S. and the USSR signed the ABM treaty. But the ink was no sooner dry on it than the Soviets embarked on a civilian defense program. They are now spending a billion dollars a year dispersing their industries, building shelters, storing wheat, and working out programs to get their population out of the nuclear sitting-duc- k category. " 1977. March Published by the American (Washington Report, 4.) Council, Security p. Through the Kennedy administration, and throughout the Johnson, Nixon and Ford administrations, all attention to the major recommendations in the NSC 68 Documents, urging the building of adequate defense against Russia, and the taking of steps to prevent Russia building superior strength appear to have been completely forgotten. The Kennedy era marks an abrupt turn in American policy. All those men could remember from the policy documents was an exaggerated interpretation that America should do nothing to embarrass Russia. Our. Government acts as if Russia has already mellowed, even though it is more militant than ever. As a result we have allowed them to build Fortress Cuba in our backyard and make it into a launching pad for Communist aggression; to take over South Vietnam, Laos and 3, 6-- 7. Cambodia, and now Angola in West Africa and to threaten Rhodesia and South Africa. We have sold them great quantities of grain at reduced prices and on easy terms. It is reported we are now helping build in Russia and for Russia the largest atomic energy plant in the world, with American knowhow and partially on credit. Our liberal aid has greatly strengthened Russias military might, and is even enabling her to surpass America in various military categories. At the same time we have neglected our own defenses, have limited our armaments, and even now are withholding of our most effective and modern production weapons. -- Remarks The NSC 68 recommendations were very positive, very important, and deserving of constant and serious attention. Dean Acheson did make some stout speeches on the nature of the Soviet threat, and there were those who were alerted to the threat. After Eisenhower became President he authorized the use of the military in the Cold War. This was in line with the oath which the military takes to protect our country against internal and external foes. Various private organizations, including the National Education Program, endeavored to alert the American people to the red threat both internally and externally. These efforts were meeting with increasing success until in 1961 when the Kennedy administration, with the cooperation of such men as Senator Fulbright, suddenly launched an attack on these anticommunist organizations and took the military abruptly' out of the cold war. Military officials in public speeches were not even allowed to tell the American people that the Soviet Union really is our enemy and working for our destruction, even though the NSC 68 bad made clear these facts. The recommendation to avoid as far as possible directly challenging Soviet prestige seems to have been very greatly exaggerated in our Cold War policy and during detente. MacArthur was very anxious to properly conclude the war in Korea which he was capable of doing but he was denied the privilege of ending the war victoriously because of direct and decisive regulations from the White House which made victory impossible. Finally, MacArthur was dismissed. A compromise with North Korea was accepted but a treaty has never yet been made and for 25 years America has kept some 40,000 soldiers ' in Korea to guard the demarcation line. This was a very humiliating compromise. It appeared at the time that President Truman was made to believe there was real danger of Russia coming into the war to prevent an American victory. Now we know they were then in no position to come in at all. Then came the Vietnam War which could have been won in a few months at any time. Yet, the fighting was allowed to drag on for nine years because of White House orders. Russia didnt want America to win. Finally, America accepted defeat and great humiliation before the entire world. But a challenge to Russias prestige was avoided. Russia and China each greatly increased their efforts to create confusion, strife and violence inside America during that nine year period. To avoid doing anything that might embarrass Russia appears to have been the dominating policy in our dealing with Russia, particularly for these last 15 years. As a result today we find Russia in a very strong position militarily. At the time of the compromise in Korea Americans were dumbfounded they couldnt understand it. Likewise, in the war in Vietnam Americans could not understand why our soldiers there were not permitted to win a victory. Had the war been carried to the heart of North Vietnam which, in view of her supplying men and armaments to the South, would have been normal and expected under normal conditions of warfare, the war could have been terminated quickly at any stage. Yet, America accepted the greatest humiliation in her history. But avoided embarrassing Russia. A big change was occurring in American policy. A change that may lead to our demise. In order to meet the defense needs of the country it was recommended that taxes would have to be raised, and even certain desirable programs which were for other purposes than defense and foreign assistance might have to be postponed. Intelligence activities would have to be improved and intensified, civilization defense and internal security programs would need to be developed, economic and military aspects of our country improved, the confidence of others in our strength and resolution be built up, and we would need "to wage overt psychological warfare calculative to encourage mass defections Jrom Soviet allegiance and to frustrate the Kremlin design in other ways." It was also said there should be: "Intensification of affirmative and timely measures and operations by covert means in the fields of economic warfare and political and psychological warfare with a view to fomenting and supporting unrest and revolt in selected strategic satellite countries . (57) Our increased taxes have been in many cases devoted to social programs, some of which have been very demoralizing. Instead of increasing intelligence, we are discontinuing some June 12, 1977 The Utah Independent Page 7 SECRET DOCUM ENTS programs, and are even beginning to wreck the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. The document called for the enlargement of "our technical superiority by an accelerated exploitation of the scientific potential of the United States and our allies. (55) This policy has been sabotaged. We have accelerated our scientific and technological advancement but we have also increasingly shared it with the Soviet Union. Treason, greed, andor stupidity are involved in trying to our enemies while at the same time sharing our technology technologically with them. We are now selling to the U.S.S.R. computers which are more advanced than are theirs, and helping them in many other ways. How can we put a strain on the Soviet economy and hamper their military preparations if we help relieve that strain through sharing our technology and extending credit? NSC 68 said that we should foment and support "unrest and revolt in selected strategic satellite countries. (57) But what happened when Hungary revolted in 1956? Our government by word and by action assured the Soviet Union that we would do nothing and we merely watched while the Kremlin crushed Hungary. The same was true of the revolt in Czechoslovakia. By watching and wringing our hands we told the satellites in no uncertain terms that if they revolted they could not expect any help from us. There is now however one hopeful sign. President Carter is stirring a lot of concern inside Russia with his insistence on "Human Rights." However, these efforts should be greatly increased. It offers our best hope, if adequately followed through. The Russian masses are not happy under their mthless dictatorship. Only about 6 percent of the Russian people even belong to the Communist Party. While Russia does hold elections, and while it is reported that some 98 percent of the people do vote, they know the election means nothing. There is only one name on the ballot for each office. Why then do they vote? Because they are told to, and they fear to disobey the order. The farmers are unhappy with the fact that, (except for a small garden plot) their whole crop belongs to, and will be taken by, the government. Some informed writers say more than 50 percent of the Russian people would side with America now in event of a war between the two powers, if they thought it likely America would win. It is reported those people are thrilled with the insistence Carter is putting behind his "Human Rights program. Unrest with Russia now offers our surest and cheapest way to guard against an attack by Russia. Sources of Internal Weakness The NSC 68 document quoted from the 1948 directive that America should be on guard against certain internal developments which would greatly weaken her capabilities in peace or in war. It flamed the following: "a.. Serious espi&nage, subversion and sabotage, partCommunist activity, icularly by concerted and "b.. Prolonged or exaggerated economic instability. c.. Internal political and social disunity. "d.. Inadequate or excessive armament or foreign aid expenditures. "e..An excessive or wasteful usage of our resources in time out-distan- well-direct- ce ed of peace. "f. Lessening of U.S. prestige and influence through vacillation or appeasement or lack of skill and imagination in the conduct of its foreign policy or by shirking world responsibilities. g. Development of a false sense of security through a deceptive change in Soviet tactics." (61) Each presidential administration, from Kennedy to the present, has made its contributions to the increase of at least some of these weakening factors in the U.S., all of which now exist to one degree or another, and contribute mightily to our very serious crisis. Our economic stability has been greatly weakened through the spread of the ideas of Socialism and their implementation, including the continuation of very liberal aid to a large number of foreign nations and the rapid expansion of social programs in our own country leading to destructive inflation, a dirth of capital, and unemployment. Social disunity and internal political disunity have been increased by the freedom extended to subversive groups operating in this country, by our aiding the Soviet Union, and by political opportunists in this country who are less concerned about the survival of the U.S. than they are about the next election. The spread of Socialism through many of our educational and government institutions has increased our internal disunity. Our prestige has been lessened by the vacillation and appeasement which led to the rise to power of Castro in Cuba, the Bay of Pigs debacle in Cuba, the failure to win in North Korea, the refusal to defeat Communism in Vietnam, and the surrender there to Communism under the guise of a peace treaty, which left great quantities of armaments on the field for them to possess, and left them free to take over South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos; which they did. Time after time we have continued to be deceived by a change in Soviet tactics. A false sense of security is spread in our own country by those public figures who even leave the impression that we do not know what the intentions of the Soviets are. It is spread by certain statements of Andrew Young, our top man at the U.N. who says that Communism has never been a threat to him. Communism now dominates China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia and its aggression in Asia has not ceased. Although there is a family fuss between China and Russia they both view the U.S. as their enemy. so-call- ed Is There Another Secret Document? Certain facts lead me to wonder if there isnt in current national policy another "Secret Document" very different. 1. The fact that this one remained under cover for 25 years shows it can happen. 2. Current National Policy, as declared by certain prominent individuals, is quite opposite to important aspects of this one. 3. This implies a national policy which has not been announced. The 1947 article by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. argues that the best course for America would be to go gradually into a state of Socialism. Then in 1961 came the Fulbright Memorandum which complained bitterly about the active part the military and certain private groups and individuals were taking to warn the American people of the dangerous objectives of the Communists, and following which the military were abruptly prohibited from helping to carry out the exact policies the "Top Secret Documents" advocated. In like manner certain government agencies began intimidation of certain private agencies involved in a defense of Constitutional government and private enterprise. Influential aspects of the media joined in the fight against honorable individuals and groups of individuals involved in exposing the basic policies and fruits of Communism and focusing attention upon the actual virtues of Constitutional government and private enterprise, which have given American employees the shortest hours, the best working conditions and the highest wages ever available in any large country. Government regulations have constantly imposed tougher and tougher restrictions on American industries, and labor unions have had the encouragement and support of the media and of government in extracting higher wages than employers could maintain and keep their industries in a healthy state. In fact it is now reported that corporate Americas total indebtedness runs above $1 trillion. Utlities throughout the nation are having great difficulty in obtaining permission to increase rates enough to keep up with rising wages and other costs. Automobile companies are faced with similar problems and uncertainties. Farmers (who feed the nation and produce great quantities of grain and meat for shipments abroad) are faced with so many regulations and restrictions that they must depend upon government subsidies for the very margin on which they survive. The oil and gas industries have been badly injured with government overregulation. Whence Apparent Coordination? Is all this being done, under a secret government policy, and for the purpose of preparing America for government takeover in the near future? President Johnson regarding wealth said, "We are going to take it from those who have it, and give it to those who dont have it." Is that why inflation is robbing all those who have money? Any given amount of money that any person has today is worth only 20 percent what it was worth in 1945, and its value erodes year by year. Will it finally become worthless, thereby equalizing everybody? Is that the way we are equalizing the wealth? Dr. Howard Kershner, a long time personal friend of mine, and a past Professor of Economics, an honored gentleman and now Chairman of the Board of the Christian Freedom Foundation in Applied Christianity printed the following two stories in one of his pamphlets: The Snare of Gradualism. Twenty years ago Congress, alarmed by grants some of the great foundations were making g to agitation groups, resolved to investigate the whole Reece Committee of the House of subject. The Representatives was in charge of the investigation. The Director of Research far this committee was one Norman left-win- so-call- ed Continued on pgge Q |