THESTRUGGLEAGAINSTTHEHISTORICALBLACKOUT

ByHarryElmerBarnes(1889–1968)

1950(Fifth,revisedandenlargededition)

THESTRUGGLEAGAINSTTHEHISTORICALBLACKOUTByHarryElmerBarnes

Copyright©1947byHarryElmerBarnes(1889–1968)Allrightsreserved

Fifth,revisedandenlargededition.Self-published,ca.mid-1950

Thisedition:March2017PublishedbyPaulBondarovski

undertheCreativeCommonsAttributionLicense3.0Publisher’swebsite:www.wariscrime.com

Design,layoutandcover©2017byPaulBondarovskiOnthecover:“Censorship”byEricDrooker,www.drooker.com.

Contents

I.NoteonRevisionismThenandNowII.TheWaysofthe“BlackoutBoys”

III.ChameleonHistoriographyIV.LewisMumford’sIronCurtain

V.Goebbels,OurTotalitarianLiberalsandthePermeationofTotalitarianIdeasVI.TheUnitedStatesEntersthe“1984”Pattern

TributetoCHARLESAUSTINBEARD

Greateagle,knoweroftheskies,Ofwindyportents,eclipsesandthedust-blownmantracks

Crossingandrecrossinginquicksandsandstone.Underhisscrutinytherevealedbones

Andgirthofthepast;thestring-ledfigures;thegodsinthemachine.Thegreatspiritflies,siftingtheair,translatingearthshapesagainstthe

movingscreen.Tamepronouncers,parrots,gullsandshamansuttercries,

Communicatetheirshrilldistress;declarehimlessthanthefamiliarapes.Buttheshadowofthespiritenfoldsthemall,

AndhereandtherewithshieldedeyesPeoplehaveseenthesteadywingsandfarlightstrikingthem,Andhereandthererecallhowlongagothefirewasbrought,

Thevulturesandtherock,andwillrememberhim.

EugeneDavidson

I.NoteonRevisionismThenandNow

Oneofthemorenotablecontrastsintheintellectualatmosphereoftoday,ascomparedwiththatwhichfollowedtheFirstWorldWar,isthefargreateroppositiontothedisseminationoftruthwithrespecttothecausesoftheSecondWorldWar.Whilethewartimemythologylastedforyearsafter1918,nevertheless,leadingeditorssoonactuallycravedcontributionswhichsetforththefactsabouttheresponsibilityfortheoutbreakofwarin1914.ProfessorSidneyB.FaybegantopublishhisrevolutionaryarticlesonthecausesoftheFirstWorldWarintheAmericanHistoricalReviewinJuly,1920.Today,itisnexttoimpossibletogetanyleadingpublishinghouseoranyseriousnewspaperorperiodicaltoprintanythingwhichupsetstheconventionalfictionsabouttheresponsibilityforthecomingofwarinSeptember,1939,andforourentryinDecember,1941.

MytwobriefcontributionstoNeo-Revisionismofferedlateronaresymptomaticofthecontrastingsituationmentionedabove.In1924,theeditorsoftheNewRepublicandTheNewYorkTimesCurrentHistoryMagazineveritablyimportunedmetowritethearticleswhichfirstlaunchedRevisionismonanygeneralorpopularscaleintheUnitedStates.In1948,IpreparedthereviewofWalterMillis’ThisIsPearlattherequestofoneofourleadingacademicjournals.Ilatersubmittedittooneofourbestliberalperiodicals.Itwasrejectedbyboth,thoughithadbeenreadandhighlypraisedbytheforemostAmericanhistoricalauthorityonPearlHarboranditsantecedents.MycommentonLewisMumford’sresignationfromtheNationalInstituteofArtsandLetterswassubmittedtotheNewYorkHerald-Tribune,theNewYorkTimes,andtheChicagoTribune.TheHerald-Tribunedidnotevenacknowledgeitsreceipt.TheTimesdeclinedtoprintitonthegroundoflackofspace.TheChicagoTribunepublisheditalmostwithoutchange.Thelatterpaperisvirtuallyuniquein

openingitscolumnstoNeo-Revisionistcontributionstoday.Evenatthistime,itmaybesafelystatedthattheneedforsearching

Revisionistscholarshipisoverwhelminglygreaterthanafter1918andthattheresults,ifsuchscholarshipisforthcoming,willbevastlymoreshockingtotheAmericanpublicthanthematerialpublishedinthe1920’s.Indeed,thelittlethathasalreadybeenpublishedontheSecondWorldWarisprobablymoredismayingthanthetotalityofRevisionismrelativeto1914and1917.

ButthedifficultiesingettinganytruthpublishedabouttheresponsibilityforWorldWarIIareallbutinsuperable.AlthoughoneimportantNewYorkpublisherbroughtoutaveritablelibraryofRevisionistbooksbetween1925and1930,virtuallynoleadingcommercialpublisherwilltouchabooktodaywhichpromisestotellthetruthinthisfield,nomatterhowgreatthepossiblesalesprospect.NoneofDr.Beard’spreviouscommercialpublisherswouldhaveconsideredhisbookontheantecedentsofPearlHarbor,buthewasabletoturntothecourageous,friendlyheadofauniversitypress.Mr.Morgensternwascompelledtopublishhisbookthroughasmall,fearlessfirm.Notallpublishersarepersonallyopposedtolettinginthelight,buteventhosewhoarefriendlytoNeo-Revisionismareinbusinesstomakemoney.PowerfulpressuregroupsseetoitthatpublisherswhodefythebanonNeo-Revisionistbooksmeetwithdifficultyinmarketingbooksthroughtheusualoutlets.TheleadingpopularBookClubsarecontrolledbythesamepressuregroupsthatoperatetheblackoutandwouldneverremotelyconsiderdistributingorrecommendingabookwhichdepartsfromtheacceptedloreonworldaffairsandwarresponsibility.

Evenwhensuchabooksqueezesthroughthepublishingban,editorssetthereviewinghatchet-menfromtheSmearbundimmediatelytoworktomurderthebook.AsidefromreviewsbyEdwinM.Borchard,HarryPaxtonHowardandAdmiralH.E.Yarnell,Morgenstern’sbrilliantbookdidnotgetonefairandhonestreviewwhenitappeared,andProfessorGeorgeA.LundbergfounditimpossibletolocateaneditorwhowouldprinthisreviewuntilMay,1948,therebydelayingitsappearanceuntileighteenmonthsafterthebookwaspublished.DespitehiseminenceinthehistoricalprofessionasthedeanofAmericanhistorians,thesametreatmenthasbeenaccordedDr.Beardbythehatchet-menoftheSmearbund.EvenmenwhomadetheirhistoricalreputationinpartbyusingDr.Beard’spersonalhistoricalmaterialshavenothesitatedto

attempttosmearhisbookandhishistoricalreputation.Indeed,the“blackoutboys”havenotrestedcontentwithsmearingthosewho

havesoughttotellthetruthaboutthecausesoftheSecondWorldWar.TheyhavenowadvancedtothepointwheretheyareseekingtosmearthosewhotoldtruthaboutthecausesoftheFirstWorldWar.AtthemeetingoftheAmericanHistoricAssociationinBostoninDecember,1949,twopaperswerereadthatendeavoredtounderminetheestablishedRevisionistwritingsregardingthepreludetothatconflict.ArthurM.Schlesinger,Jr.,hasevengonesofarastoattackthosewhohavewritteninarevisionisttoneonthecausesoftheCivilWar.ThenextstepwillbetoattacktherevisionofhistoricalopinionrelativetothecausesoftheAmericanRevolutionandfindthat,afterall,“BogBill”ThompsonwasrightinhisviewsofthatconflictandhisthreattothrowGeorgeVintotheChicagoShipCanal.Inotherwords,Revisionism,whichonlymeansbringinghistoryintoaccordwithfacts,nowseemstoberejectedbytheblackoutboysasamortalsinagainstClio—theMuseoftheirsubject.

TheextenttowhichthedeterminationtoshutoffthetruthinthisfieldhasgoneisrevealedbytheAnnualReportoftheRockefellerFoundationfor1946(p.188),whereitisfranklystatedthatalargesumofmoneyhasbeengrantedtofrustrateandchecktheriseofRevisionismafterWorldWarII.Thereistobealavishlysubsidized“official”historydirectedbymenwhoplayedanimportantroleinthepropagandaandintelligenceworkoftheBritishandAmericanGovernmentsduringtheWar.Thisissupposedtosettlethematterforalltime.

II.TheWaysofthe“BlackoutBoys”

Thehistoricalblackoutofourdaytakes,asweshallsee,severalformsandmanifestsitselfinanumberofways,butinallcasesthereisadeterminedefforttoevadethefactsandlogicofthesituation.ThereasonsfortheextentandferocityoftheattempttorestrainandsuppressthetruthaboutresponsibilityfortheWorldWarIIandourentrythereinareobvious.

Thevestednationalpoliticalinterestsofthelast15yearshavetheirreputationdeeplyinvolvedinmaintainingintactthemythofthesuperbabilityandimpeccableintegrityoftheirChief,FranklinDelanoRoosevelt.And,today,themaintenanceoftheRooseveltMythisfarmorecloselytiedupwiththewisdomandhonorofMr.Roosevelt’sforeignpolicythanwiththesoundnessoftheNewDealsocialandeconomicprogram.

ThisaspectofthematterisillustratedbythelyricalanddeliriousrhapsodiesshoweredontheRooseveltPapersdealingwiththewaryears,especiallybyPaulH.DouglasintheNewYorkTimes,February19,1950,andbyHenrySteeleCommagerintheNewYorkHerald-Tribuneofthesamedate,andbytheludicrous,irresponsibleandgrotesquewhitewashofPearlHarborbyJonathanDanielsinTheAspirinAge.Moreover,manyRepublicanswhodetestthefarmoredefensibleNewDealdomesticprogramhaveevenheatedlyespousedtheardentinternationalismandGlobaloneythatledunintowarandtheworldintoruinornearruin.

Further,theinterventionistswhoaidedandabettedMr.Rooseveltandhisentourageinhiswarprogrammustdefendthewisdomandoutcomeoftheirwar-mongering.Thespecialpressuregroupswhichstroveardentlyforwarmustlikewisejustifytheirworks,howevercalamitoustheultimateresultsforthemselvesandothers.

Finally,andveryimportant,Americanleadershipandpoliciesweredirectly

anddeeplyinvolvedintheoutbreakandtheextensionoftheSecondWorldWar,whichwasconspicuouslynotthecasein1914.Wehadnoguiltincover-upin1914.TheRevisionistcontroversiesofthe1920’srelatedchieflytothedeedsandpoliciesofforeigncountriesandleaders.

InadditiontotheoppositionofpublicgroupstothetruthaboutresponsibilityforWorldWarII,manyoftheprofessionalhistoriansandothersocialscientistshaveavestedinterestinperpetratingthepre-warandwartimemythology.

OnereasonwhythehistoriansverygenerallyopposedthetruthrelativetoresponsibilityfortheFirstWorldWarwasthatsomanyofthemhadtakenanactivepartinspreadingthewartimepropagandaandhadalsoworkedforColonelHouse’sCommitteeinpreparingmaterialforthepeace-making,someconsiderablenumberofthemgoingtoPariswithMr.Wilsononhisill-fatedadventure.Naturally,theywereloathtoadmitthattheenterpriseinwhichtheyplayedsoprominentapartwasbothafraudandaflop.Today,thissituationhasbeenmultipliedmanyfold.Historiansandothersocialscientistsveritablyswarmedintothevariouswartimeagenciesafter1940,especiallytheOfficeofWarInformationandtheOfficeofStrategicServices.TheywereintimatelyassociatedwiththewareffortandwiththeshapingofpublicopiniontoconformtothethesisoverthepureandlimpididealismandetherialinnocenceoftheUnitedStatesandoursoleandexclusivedevotiontoself-defenseandworldbettermentthroughthesword.Hence,theoppositionofhistoriansandsocialscientiststotruthaboutwarresponsibilityandobviousresultsoftheWarismanytimesgreatertodaythanitwasintheyearsfollowingthecloseoftheFirstWorldWar.NotsincethedeclineofpaganismandtheriseofChristianityhavetherebeensomanypowerfulpressuregroupsalertedagainstthediscoveryandexpositionoftruthinhistoryasisthesituationtoday.

Howfarthisprecautionaryandprotectivevindictivenesscangoiswellillustratedbythecurrentreactiontobooksbytheauthorofthisbrochure.WhenhisHistoryoftheWesternCivilizationappearedin1935,itwasglowinglyreviewedonthefrontpageoftheNewYorkTimesBookMagazine,oftheHerald-Tribune“Books,”intheSaturdayReviewofLiterature.TheAmericanHistoricalReviewgaveitalongandfavorablereviewbytheforemostAmericanauthorityinthefield.WhenhisSocietyinTransitionwaspublishedin1939,theTimesaccordedittheuniquehonorofreviewingatextbookonthefirstpageof

itsBookMagazine.Butwhentheauthor’sSurveyofWesternCivilizationwaspublishedin1947,andhisHistoricalSociologyin1948,noneoftheabove-mentionedpublications,sofarascouldbediscovered,gaveeitherofthemsomuchasabooknote.AndtheauthorhaswrittennothingonRevisionismrelativetotheSecondWorldWarexceptthisslenderbrochure.Apparently,themovementhasgonesofarthatauthorsarebeingsuppressedorgivensilenttreatmentforfearthattheymightlateronpublishsomelittletruthonworldaffairs.Theauthorofthisbrochurewas,naturally,suspectbecauseofhiswritingsontheFirstWorldWar.

Themethodsfollowedbythevariousinterestedgroupsinseekingtoblackouthistoricaltruthaboutworldaffairssince1933arenumerous,but,asidefromsubterraneanpersecutionsofindividuals,theyfallmainlyintothefollowingpatterns:

1)ignoringorobscuringthematerialwhichisproducingtheunwelcomefacts;

2)smearingtheauthorsofbooksrevealingsuchfacts;3)contendingthat,whateverthedeviousdeceptionspracticedbyMr.

Rooseveltandhissupportersfrom1937to1941,allthiswasmorethanjustifiedintheinterestofveritablenationalself-preservation;and

4)maintainingthesuccessfuldeceptionofthepopulaceisthecornerstoneofsagaciousstatecraftunderoursystemofgovernment.

TheyareallastutelycombinedinBasilRauch’sRoosevelt:fromMunichtoPearlHarbor.

TheobscuringoftheNeo-RevisionistmaterialmaybeillustratedbythespaceandpositionassignedtothereviewsofCharlesAustinBeard’sAmericanForeignPolicyintheMaking,1932–1940andGeorgeMorgenstern’sPearlHarborintheAmericanHistoricalReviewandinleadingnewspapersandperiodicals.DespitetherevolutionarynatureandvastimportanceoftheBeardbook,itwasgivenonlyapageintheAmericanHistoricalReview,butamusinglyenough,thereviewerusedthebriefspaceathisdisposaltopraisethebook.Thiswasnotallowedtohappenagain.ThoughMorgenstern’sbookwasperhapsthemostimportantsinglevolumepublishedinthefieldofAmericanhistoryintheyear1947,itwasrelegatedtoabooknoteandwasroundlysmeared.Ofallthebook-reviewingcolumnistsinNewYorkCitypapers,onlyonereviewed

Morgenstern’sbookandhesmearedit.TheSaturdayReviewofLiteratureignoreditcompletely,andsodidmostoftheleadingperiodicals.Thoughmanyinfinitelylessimportantbooks,fromthestandpointofbothtimelinessandintrinsicmeritofcontent,receivedfrontpagepositiontherein,neithertheMorgensternbooknortheBeardvolumewasgiventhisplaceintheSundaybookreviewsectionoftheTimesorHerald-Tribune.

ThesamewasstrikinglytrueofDr.Beard’sbookonPresidentRooseveltandtheComingoftheWar,1941,easilythemoststartlingandexcitinghistoricalworkwhichwaspublishedintheyear1948.HadthesebooksardentlydefendedtheRooseveltlegend,theywouldassuredlyhavebeenassignedfrontpageposition.AsOswaldGarrisonVillardremarksofthefirstBeardvolume:“HaditbeenawarmapprovalofFDRandhiswarmethods,IwillwagerwhateverpressstandingIhavethatitwouldhavebeenfeaturedonthefirstpagesoftheHerald-Tribune‘Books’andtheTimesliterarysectionandreceivedunboundedpraisefromWalterMillis,AllanNevins,andothersimilaraxemen.”

TheattitudeofeditorswhoseektosuppresspublicknowledgeofNeo-RevisionistliteratureiswellillustratedbyananecdoterelatedbyMr.Villard:

“Imyselfrangupamagazinewhichsomemonthspreviouslyhadaskedmetoreviewabookforthemandaskediftheywouldacceptanotherreviewfromme.Theanswerwas‘Yes,ofcourse.Whatbookhadyouinmind?’Ireplied:‘Morgenstern’sPearlHarbor.’

‘Oh,that’sthatnewbookattackingF.D.R.andthewar,isn’tit?’‘Yes.’‘Well,howdoyoustandonit?’‘Ibelieve,sincehisbookisbasedontherecordsofthePearlHarborinquiry,

heisright.’‘Oh,wedon’thandlebooksofthattype.Itisagainstourpolicytodoso’.”WhilethepapersandperiodicalsareclosedtoNeo-Revisionisttruth,theyare,

ofcourse,wideopenandeagerforanythingwhichcontinuesthewartimemythology.Iftheauthorsofsuchmythologydidnotfeelreasonablyassuredthatanswerstotheirarticlescannotbepublished,itisunlikelythattheywouldriskprintingsuchanamazingwhitewashasthatbyGeneralShermanMileson“PearlHarborinRetrospect,”intheAtlanticMonthly,July,1948,andCaptainSamuelEliotMorison’svehementattackonBeardintheAugustissue.

Now,CaptainMorisonisanablehistorianofnauticalmattersandacharmingmanpersonally.ButhispretensionstoanythinglikeobjectivityinweighingresponsibilityforWorldWarIIcanhardlybesustained.InhisForewordtoMorison’sBattleoftheAtlantic,thelateJamesForrestalletthecatoutofthebag.Herevealedthatasearlyas1942ProfessorMorisonsuggestedtoPresidentRooseveltthattherightkindofhistoryofnavaloperationsduringtheWarshouldbewrittenandmodestlyofferedhis“services”todothejobsoastoreflectpropercreditupontheAdministration.Mr.RooseveltandSecretaryFrankKnoxheartilyagreedtothispropositionandMorisonwasgivenacommissionintheNavalReservetowritetheofficialhistoryofnavaloperationsofWorldWarII.IfRooseveltandKnoxwerealivetoday,theywouldhavenoreasontoregrettheirchoiceofanhistorian.But,asa“courthistorian”andthe“hiredman,”howeverable,ofRooseveltandKnox,CaptainMorison’squalificationstotakeabowtovonRankeandpassjudgmentontheworkofDr.Beard,whomnoAdministrationorpartywaseverabletobuy,areneitherimpressivenorconvincing.

ThesmearingdeviceusedalmostuniversallyindiscreditingNeo-Revisionistbooksisacarry-overofthepropagandastrategyperfectedbyCharlesMichelsoninpoliticaltechnique,andextendedbyJosephGoebbelsandJohnRoyCarlson,namely,seekingtodestroythereputationofanopponentbyassociatinghim,howeverunfairly,withsomeodiousquality,attitude,policyorpersonalities,eventhoughthismayhavenothingtodowiththevitalfactsinthesituation.Itisonlyacomplexandskillfulapplicationoftheoldadageabout“givingadogabadname.”Thisisaneasyandfacileprocedure,foritalltooofteneffectivelydisposesofanopponentwithoutinvolvingtheonerousresponsibilityoffacingthefacts.The“blackoutboys”havenothesitatedtomaintainthattheefforttotellthetruthaboutresponsibilityforWorldWarIIisdownrightwicked.ProfessorSamuelFlaggBemisdeclaresthatsuchauexcursionintointellectualintegrityis“serious,unfortunate,deplorable.”

SincetheMorgensternbookwasthefirsttoshakethefoundationsoftheinterventionistandwartimepropagandaandbecauseMorgensternisnotaprofessionalhistorianoflongtimeacademicstanding,hisworkwasgreetedwithanavalancheofsmears.Indeed,aswehavepointedoutabove,virtuallytheonlyfairreviewsoftheMorgensternvolumewerethosebyProfessorsBorchardand

Lundberg,Mr.Howard,andAdmiralYarnell.Therewasrarelyanyeffortwhatevertowrestlewiththevastarrayoffactsanddocumentaryevidencewhich,bothDr.BeardandAdmiralYarnellmaintained,boreoutallofMorgenstern’sessentialstatementsandconclusions.Rather,hewasgreetedwithanalmostunrelievedvolleyofsmears.

Somereviewersrestedcontentwithpointingoutthatheisayoungmanand,hence,cannotbesupposedtoknowmuch,eventhoughtheNewYorkTimeshandedovertoArthurM.Schlesinger,Jr.,amuchyoungerman,theresponsibilityforreviewingDr.Beard’sgreatbookonPresidentRooseveltandtheComingoftheWar,1941.AnotherreviewerassertedthatallthatneededtobesaidtorefuteandsilencethebookwastopointoutthatMorgensternisemployedbytheChicagoTribune.Othersstressedthefactthatheisonlyanamateur,dabblingwithdocuments,withoutthetrainingaffordedbythegraduatehistoricalseminar,thoughMorgensternwasanhonorstudentofhistoryattheUniversityofChicago.Itwasnotemphasizedthatmostoftheprofessorswhoreviewedhisbookdepartedentirelyfromanyseminarcanonsofresearchandcriticismwhichtheymayhaveearliermastered.MorgensternsurelyworkedandwroteincloserconformitytovonRanke’sexhortationsthanhisprofessorialreviewers.Otherssoughttodisposeofthebookbystatingthatitwas“bitterlypartisan,”wascomposedinastateof“blindanger,”orwrittenwith“unusualasperity,”thoughitisactuallythefactthatMorgensternisfarlessbitter,angryorblindthanhisreviewers.Indeed,thetoneofhisbookismoreoneofearnestandpracticalhumorandurbanesatirethanofindignation.Fewbooksofthistypehavebeenfreerofanytaintofwrathandfury.

Theattitudeofsuchreviewersisagoodexampleofwhatthepsychologistscallthemechanismof“projection.”ThereviewersattributedtoMorgensternthe“blindanger”thattheythemselvesfeltwhencompelledtofacethetruth.InreviewingthebookfortheInfantryJournal,May,1947,ProfessorHarveyA.DeWeerddeclaredthatitwas“themostflagrantexampleofslantedhistory”thathadcometohisattention“inrecentyears,”buthefailedtomakeitclearthattheuniquenessintheslantingofMorgenstern’sbookwasthatitwas“slanted”towardsthetruth,somethingwhichwasandstillisquiteunusualinhistoricalwritingonthistheme.

ThemostcompletesmearingoftheMorgensternbookwasperformedby

WalterMillisintheHerald-Tribune“Books,”though,withalltheextensivespaceathisdisposal,hemadelittleseriousefforttocometogripswiththefactsinthesituation.

ProfessorGordonCraigofPrinceton,reviewingthebookintheNewYorkTimes,February9,1947,heldthatthebookwasnomorethananti-Roosevelt“mythology”andcompletely“inbelievable,”thoughheadducednorelevantevidenceinsupportofeitheroftheseassertions.

OneofthemostremarkableattacksonthebookwasmadebyProfessorOronJ.HaleintheAnnalsoftheAmericanAcademy,July,1947.Aftersmearingthebookwiththechargeofbitterpartisanshipandassertingthattheauthormadeonlyafake“parade”ofthe“externalsofscholarship,”HalesoughtmanfullybutfutilelytofindseriouserrorsinMorgenstern’smaterials.Hethenconcludedthatallormostofthestatementsinthebookarecorrectbutthatthebookasawholeisa“greatuntruth.”ThisreversesthelineofthecurrentapologistsfortheRooseveltforeignpolicy,whonowagreethatmostofRoosevelt’spublicstatementsthereuponwereuntruebutthattheprogramasawholewasagreattruthwhichexemplifiedthedesirableprocedureofthe“goodofficer”—theconscientiouspublicservant.

DuetothefactthatDr.Beardwasatrainedandavenerablescholarand,hence,obviouslynotajuvenileamateurinusinghistoricaldocuments,thathehadaworld-widereputationasoneofthemosteminentandproductivehistoriansandpoliticalscientiststheUnitedStateshaseverproduced,thatheservedaspresidentoftheAmericanPoliticalScienceAssociationandtheAmericanHistoricalAssociation,andthathewasawardedin1948theGoldMedaloftheNationalInstituteofArtsandLettersforthebesthistoricalworkofthelastdecade,itrequiredalittlemoregallandtrepidationtoapplythesmeartechniquetohimandhistwosplendidbooksonAmericanforeignpolicy.

YetDr.Bearddidnotescapeunscathed,thoughhisfactsandobjectivitycannotbevalidlychallenged.AsProfessorLouisMartinSearspointedoutintheAmericanHistoricalReview(April,1947,p.532):“ThevolumeunderreviewissaidtogiveannoyancetothefollowersofFranklinDelanoRoosevelt.Ifthatbetrue,theirfaithisscarcelyfoundeduponarock,fornomoreobjectivetreatmentcouldreadilybeconceived.Theauthornowhereinjectsapersonalopinion.”Hence,theonlyfeasiblelineofapproachforcriticslayinanassaultuponDr.

Beard’sattitudetowardsourentryintoWorldWarIIandhisstandingasanhistorian.AnytestimonialsastoDr.Beard’shistoricalprowessare,therefore,aredflagtotheSmearbundbull.OnlythisconsiderationmakessuchthingsasLewisMumford’sresignationfromtheNationalInstituteofArtsandLettersorHarryD.Gideonse’sexplosionintheNewLeaderofJune12,1948,atallexplicable.

ThedifficultyofattackingDr.Beardonthebasisofhisstandingasanhistorianhasdivertedmostofthesmearingofhimintotheallegationthathisworkisinvalidatedandunreliablebecausehewasan“isolationist.”TheabsurdityofthischargeIshalldealwithlateroninmycommentonLewisMumford.Dr.Bearddid,from1937onward,courageouslyandsanelywarnagainstthemannerinwhichtheRooseveltpolicieswereedgingusintoaforeignwaragainstthewilloftheoverwhelmingmassoftheAmericanpeopleinwhatwassupposedtobeademocraticsystemofgovernment.Beard’sstandmayormaynothavebeenwise,thoughthefactstodayoverwhelminglyproveitssoundness,butsuchanattitudehasnothingwhatevertodowithanyliteralisolationism,unlessonedefinesinternationalismaschronicmeddlingabroadandunwaveringandinvariablesupportofourentryintoanyextantforeignwar.Iwaspresentataconferenceonforeignaffairsattendedbyaboutfortyleadingsavants.Mostofthemwrungtheirhandsaboutthesorrystateoftheworldtoday,butonlytwoorthreewerefrankandcandidenoughtodiscernandadmitthatthemajorityoftheconditionswhichtheyweresodolorouslydeploringstemmeddirectlyfromtheforeignpoliciesofFranklinD.Roosevelt,fromtheChicagoBridgeSpeechofOctober,1937,totheYaltaConferenceofearly1945.Dr.Beardwasassailedforhis“isolationism”and“culturallag”byboththechairmanandthechiefparticipantfornoearthlyreasonsavethatheopposedthepolicieswhichhadledtothechaosoverwhichtheconferencewasholdingthecoroner’sinquestbutwithnointentionofdeclaringitahomicideorseekingtheculprit.Theyventedtheirspleenonthemanwhohadadvisedagainstriskingtheambuscadewhichledtothemurder.Indeed,thewholeissueof“isolationism”andtheepithet“isolationist”hasbeenonlyaveryeffectivephaseofthesmearingtechniqueinventedandappliedbytheinterventionistsbetween1937andPearlHarbor,andsonaivelyexposedandbetrayedbyProfessorWalterJohnsoninhisbook,TheBattleAgainstIsolation.

Itisbothviciousandsillytobrandapersonan“isolationist”merelybecauseheopposedourentryintoWorldWarII.Personally,Iopposedourentrywithallthepoweratmycommand—justasvigorouslyasdidDr.Beard.ButithappensthatIalsowroteoneofthelongestchaptersinthefirstimportantbookeverpublishedinbehalfoftheLeagueofNationsandhaveeversincesupportedanymoveorpolicywhichseemedtomelikelytopromoteinternationalgood-willandworldpeace.Saneinternationalismisonething;itissomethingquitedifferenttosupportentryintoawarlikelytoruincivilizationmainlytopromotethepoliticalprospectsofadomesticleader,howevercolorfulandpleasing,tosatisfytheneuroticcompulsionsofspecialinterests,andpullthechestnutsofforeignnationsoutofthefire.Thepreposterouscharacterofthewholeprocessofsmearingviathemethodofalleging“isolationism”hasbeendevastatinglyrevealedbyProfessorGeorgeA.Lundberginhisarticleon“SemanticsinInternationalRelations”inAmericanPerspective(June12,1948,pp.127–132).

Actually,thecurrentvintageofinternationalists—theGlobaloneycrowdthathavetakenoverinternationalisminthiscountrysinceabout1936—havenotservedthecauseofinternationalismandpeace.Theinternationalistsoftheearlierera,forwhomIwroteandlecturedfromcoasttocoastfortwentyyearsafter1918,weretruebelieversininternationalgoodwillandpeaceandworkedtosecuretheseobjectives.TheGlobaloneyandinterventionistcrowd,whilepratingaboutinternationalismandpeace,havedonemorethananybodyelseexceptthetotalitariandictatorstopromotenationalismandreviveanddirectthewarspirit.Theyhavecreatedanunprecedentedspiritofnationalism,militarismandimperialismintheUnitedStatesandhavehelpedtoprovokeasimilardevelopmentinSovietRussia.WhileblatantnationalismwascheckedverytemporarilyinGermanyandItaly,ithasbeenstimulatedelsewhere,fromEnglandtoIndonesia,theEastIndiesandSouthAfrica.TheUnitedNationshavesteadilybecomemorenationalisticandlessunitedandtheworldtremblesandshiversonthebrinkofthethirdworldwarbeforethepeacetreatieshaveallbeennegotiatedtoconcludethesecond.ThereisalltoomuchtruthinthestatementofaneminentpublicistthatAlgerHiss’longcontinuedandadmittedactivitiesasanaggressiveinternationalistdidfarmoreharmtotheUnitedStatesthanhandingoveranynumberofsecretStateDepartmentdocumentswhichhecouldhavetranscribedandtransmittedtotheRussians.

ThoughCatholiccircleshavebeenunusuallyfairintoleratingthetruthaboutthecausesofWorldWarII,thepressureontheeditorswassogreatthateventheenlightenedCommonwealpermittedMasonWadetosmearDr.Beardinitscolumns.ButthemostirresponsibleattempttosmearDr.Beardasan“isolationist”camewithalmostuniquelybadtastefromthepenofHarryD.Gideonse,whoreviewedDr.Beard’sPresidentRooseveltandtheComingoftheWar,1941,intheNewLeader,June12,1948.

Dr.Beardwasanative-bornAmericanwhohadlaboredmightilyforsomefiftyyearstoimprovemanyphasesofAmericanintellectualandpubliclife.NoAmericanhistorian,pastorpresent,hadamorehonorablerecordasanactiveandeffectiveintellectualpatriot.Hehadneverwrittenawordwhichplacedtheinterestsofothernationsabovethoseofourcountry.Mr.Gideonse,ontheotherhand,isDutch-born,surelyanhonorablepaternity.ButthereislittleevidencethathehaseverbecomecompletelyimmersedinAmericanismorhastakenonathoroughlyAmericanpointofview.InhispublicstatementsovermanyyearshehasalwaysgivenevidenceofarobustinternationalismwhichhaslittleprimaryregardforAmericaninstitutionsorprecedents.Hisinternationalismappearstohaveatwofoldbasis:ahangoveroftheDutchimperialismoftheDutchEastIndiaCompanytycoonsofthe17thand18thcenturiesandthevirusofcurrentAmericanGlobaloney.Anyhow,ithaspaidoffremarkablywell,forGideonsewassummonedfromChicagotoColumbiaUniversityandthen,totheamazementevenofhisfriends,suddenlycatapultedintothepresidencyofBrooklynCollegein1939.

WhileGideonsefindsothernon-factualgroundsforassaultingDr.Beard,heholdsthatBeard’sallegedisolationismisallthatisneededtobrushthebookaside.Indeed,allthatisrequiredforthatisthefact,asGideonsetellsustwiceinthecourseofhisreview,thatithasbeenpraisedasaverygreatbookbythe“isolationist”ChicagoTribune.ItmightbecogentlyobservedthattheTribunehasalsopraisedtheBible,Shakespeare’sworks,andEinstein’swritingsonrelativity.ButGideonsehasnotlaughedthisoffasyet.IfpraisebytheChicagoTribunewerenotenoughtodestroythevalidityofDr.Beard’sbook,then,inGideonse’sview,itwouldbeamplydisposedofbythefactthathequotesevenrelativelysparinglystatementsbyeminent“isolationists”likeSenatorsBurtonK.WheelerandGeraldP.Nye.Noteventhefact,whichGideonseconcedes,that

healsocitesEleanorRooseveltfrequentlyandwithrespectcanredeemDr.Beardafterherevealedanyacquaintancewiththeeffusionsofallegedlynefarious“isolationist”personalities.

Though,aswehavemadeclear,reviewershave,naturally,beenatriflehesitantindaringtominimizeDr.Beard’sstatusasanhistorian,WalterMillisandGideonsehavenotbeendismayedorsidetrackedevenhere.InhisreviewofDr.Beard’sPresidentRooseveltandtheComingoftheWar,1941,intheHerald-Tribune“Books,”April11,1948,MilliscontendedthatBeardisnotentitledtorankasanobjectivehistorianaccordingtoacademicfictions,butreallybelongsbackwithTertullian,Orosius,St.Bernardandother“DarkAge”exemplarsofthe“Deviltheoryofhistory.”ButitremainedforGideonsetosailinandseektodivestDr.Beardofallclaimstoanystandingasanhistoricalscholar.JustwhyGideonseshouldpresumetopassonquestionsofhistoriographyandtogradehistoriansisnotquiteevident,thoughhehasbeendoingsoforsomeyears.Professionally,thoughadmittedlyaverytalentedclassroomoratorandaneffective“rabblerouser”ofthestudentbody,hewasonlyasomewhatobscureeconomistwhenhestrodeintoFlatbushwithhismace.ButGideonsedoesnothesitatetoadministerasharpslaptothemembersoftheAmericanHistoricalAssociationwhoelectedBeardtotheirpresidencyin1933bypooh-poohingthegeneralscholarlyopinionthatDr.Beardwasthe“deanoflivingAmericanhistorians.”Thisnotionandpretension,saysGideonse,ispurely“fictitious.”Actually,accordingtoGideonse,BeardhasonlybeenalifelongpoliticalpamphleteerandhisbooksonRoosevelt’sforeignpolicyarecheapjournalism.

Inthelightofallthis,onecouldreadwithconsiderableamusementandsardonichumoranannouncementintheNewYorkTimesofSeptember8,1948,thatGideonseopenedthecollegeyearatFlatbushwithanaddresstoenteringfreshmeninwhichhegravelyandsternlyassertedthat“truthfulness”isamainandindispensablequalificationofacollegeteacher;onewhichdoesnot,perhaps,extendtocollegepresidents.

ThereweremanyotherattacksonBeard’slasttwogreatbooks.Theyusuallytookoneoftwoforms.ThefirstwereeffortstodisposeofthembybriefandcasualJovianandflippantsmears,withoutgivinganyattentionwhatevertothefactsormeetingtheargumentsofthebooks.SuchwereArthurM.SchlesingerJr.‘ssmearinthePartisanReview,implyingthatBeardsoughttojustify

collaborationwiththeNazis,MaxLerner’sslurtotheeffectthattheywere“tworatherweirdaffairs,”PercyMiller’sdescriptionofthemas“twofreneticindictmentsofFranklinRoosevelt”(implying,ifMillerknewthemeaningofthewordshewasusing,thatBeardmusthavebeeninsane),PeterLevin’stossingthemoffas“old-hat,anti-Rooseveltianmud,”orQuincyWright’sevenbrieferdispositionofthemas“astrangeargument”(strange,presumably,toWright,inthattheargumentwasbasedonfacts).

Theothertypeofapproachhasbeentosmotherthebookunderavastwelterofsideissues,nonsequiturs,andirrelevantscoldings.ThiswaswellillustratedbytheprocedureofCharlesC.Griffin,anexpertonLatinAmericanhistory,whowasselectedtoreviewBeard’slastbookfortheAmericanHistoricalReview(January,1949).Heburiedthebookunder4½pagesofimpenetrable,irrelevantanddisapprovingfog,rarelycomingtogripswiththeessentialfactsandarguments.Abouttheonlyfairandscholarlyreviewthatthebookreceivedwasbythechiefauthorityinthefield,ProfessorCharlesC.Tansill,intheMississippiValleyHistoricalReview,December,1948(pp.532–34).

Weshallreserveforalaterandmoreelaborateeditionofthisbrochureananalysisanddescriptionofthehowlingsofthe“jackals”and“hyenas”aroundthebodyofthedeadlion,anespeciallyobsceneperformancewhichfollowedDr.Beard’sdeathandwaswellexemplifiedbythearticlesofMaxLerner,ofallpersons,intheNewRepublic,October25,andNovember1,1948;ofPercyMillerintheNation,September25,1948;andofPeterLevininTomorrow,March,1949.

InadditiontosmearingandobscuringNeo-RevisionismandNeo-Revisionists,theshocktroopsofthe“historicalblackout”fallbackupontheassertionthat,whateverthenumerousdeceptionsandpublicimmoralityofMr.Roosevelt’sforeignpolicy,allthisistrivialandbesidethepoint,becauseitwasamatterofnationalself-preservationfortheUnitedStatestoenterthesecondWorldWarandcrushHitlerbeforetheNaziBlitzkriegengulfedus.OnerecallsMr.Roosevelt’sfearsomereferenceto“Hitler’stimetable”toinvadeIowa,theofficialtalkabouttheeaseofinvadingtheUnitedStatesviaDakarandBrazil,thoughsuchamovementoftroopsandsupplieswouldhavecompelledtheNazistotraverseaboutthreetimesthedistancefromBerlintoNewYorkCity,andaboutthefrequentdiscoveryofsecretNaziplansfortheinvasionoftheUnited

States,despitethefactthattheNaziswerenotabletocrossthelessthan20milesoftheDoverStrait,whenBritainwasvirtuallyhelpless.ProfessorSamuelFlaggBemisofYaleUniversityhasdescribedtheAmericansituationlatein1941as“themostawfuldangerthateverconfrontedournation,”andWalterLippmannhaswrittenof“ourmortalperil”atthistime.

Evensuchdocumentarymaterialashasalreadyappeared,mostofitofficial,hascompletelyblastedthemyththatHillerhadeventhemostremotenotionofinvadingtheUnitedStatesatanypredictableperiod.

GeneralGeorgeC.Marshall,inhisofficialReportasChiefofStaffattheendoftheWar,clearlystatedthattheNazishadnoactualplanofworlddomination.Indeed,hesays,theydidnothaveanyplanforeffectivecollaborationwiththeothertwomembersoftheAxis.Infact,theyhadnogoodlong-rangeprogramforthebestdeploymentandutilizationofNazimilitaryforcestoconquerEurope.MarshallfurtherconfirmedthisinhisdepositionforuseintheTokyotrials.FurtherinformationtothesameeffectiscontainedintheNurembergandotherrevelationsrelativetoHitler’sorderstotheNazinavyandinthedocumentsonNazi-SovietRelationsreleasedbyourGovernmentin1948–49.MorepreciseistheinformationcontainedinanofficialReporttotheSecretaryoftheArmyon“ForeignLogisticalOrganizationsandMethods”submittedinOctober,1947,andsummarizedinanarticleon“TheMobilizationofGermanEconomicReserves,”intheMay-June(1948)issueoftheQuartermasterReviewbyCol.A.G.Texley.ThismaterialshowsthattheGermaneconomicprogramandmilitaryorganizationwerelaidoutonlyforshortanddecisivecampaignsononefrontatatime—andallfrontstobeinEuropeorNorthAfrica.GermanywasnotevenpreparedtoconductthewarsheactuallyhadtowagewithRussia.Hitlerexpectedashort,whirlwindvictory.TherewasnothingintheGermanmilitaryprogramwhichremotelyenvisagedaninvasionoftheUnitedStates,evenintheeventofaGermanvictoryinEurope.ThelackofGermaneconomicpreparationforanywarofworldconquest,orevenforalongEuropeanwar,isdocumentedindetailbyDr.BurtonKleininanarticleon“Germany’sPreparationforWar;aRe-Examination,”intheAmericanEconomicReview,March,1948.Indeed,intheyearspriorto1939,GermanydidnotspendmuchmoreofhernationalincomeforpreparednessthanFranceandBritain,whichhavebeencommonlyregardedasalmostcriminallynegligentinrespecttowar

preparationsbefore1939.Hence,thewholesillynotionof“mostawfuldanger”and“mortalperil”falls

apartcompletely.NotonlydidwehavenothingtofearinthewayofaNaziinvasion,butthesituationinEuropeandtheworldsituationtodaywould,inallprobability,befarmorefavorableforusifwehadkeptoutoftheconflict.HitlercouldnothavedestroyedRussia,thetwogreattotalitarianpowerswouldhavebledeachotherwhiteandwouldhavemaintainedsomebalanceofpowerintheOldWorld.TherewouldhavebeennosucheconomicchaosinEuropeasthereistodayandnoneedfortheMarshallPlanorthemorethan25billiondollarswehavefutilelypouredintoEuropesinceV-JDay.Likewise,intheFarEast,JapanwouldhaveremainedpotenttocheckmateRussianexpansionandthegrowthofCommunisminthatvastregion.Now,wehaveraisedRussiatoapositionofcompletedominationintheOldWorld,destroyedforgenerationsanybalanceofpower,andbroughtaboutasituationwherewecancheckRussianexpansiononlybyathirdWorldWarwhichwillfinishoffwhatremainsofcivilization.ThereislittlebasisforthecurrenthystericalfearofRussianaggression,butsurelyRussiaisstrongerthanNaziGermanycouldeverhavebecomeandhasfarmorerobustplansforfurtherexpansionofterritoryandhegemony.Further,ourentryintowarwaswhatultimatelymadepossiblethevictoryoftheChineseCommunists,adding400millionorientalsasSovietsatellites,withthepossibilitythattensofmillionsmoreinsoutheasternAsiamayfallintothesameorbit.TheNurembergTrialsmadeitcertainthatthethirdworldwarwillbewagedwithunprecedentedsavagery.

Akintotheargumentfornationalself-preservationandevenmoreofahollowshamisthechargethatRevisionismaftertheFirstWorldWarlostthefruitsofpeaceandpromotedtheriseofHitler,andthattheNeo-Revisionismoftodaywilllosethepresent“peace”andpossiblybringonagreaterandworseHitler.ThisistheargumentdevelopedatlengthbyProfessorBemisinhisreviewofMorgenstern’sbookintheJournalofModernHistory,March,1947.HerehestatesthatRevisionismaftertheFirstWorldWarlostthepeaceofVersaillesand“assistedtheriseofHitlertopowerandhisonslaughtonWesterncivilization.”Then,hegoesontoask:“Willthenewrevisionismhelptolosethesecondpeaceasthefirstrevisionismhelpedtolosethefirstpeace?”

OnecouldcounterthisargumentatoncebyaskingProfessorBemiswhat

peacethereistodaythatRevisionistsoranybodyelsecouldhelptolose?ButwewillpassthisbyandconsidertheissueofRevisionism,Hitlerandpeace.SinceProfessorBemisisamanofnormalmentalequipmentandwasaliveandactiveinthe1920’s,hecannothelpknowingthathisabove-quotedassertionsareacompletemisstatementofthefactsandarepreciselycontrarytothetruth.ThefactisthatsuchRevisionistscholarsashadanyinterestbeyondestablishinghistoricaltruthsoughttogetadecentrevisionoftheTreatyofVersaillesandalliedpactsprimarilysoastoassurejusticefortheconquerednationsandtopreventtheriseofHitleroranybodylikehim.Imadethiscrystal-clearinallofmywritingsonresponsibilityfortheFirstWorldWarandsodidalltheotherRevisionistswhomadeanyefforttoindicatethepracticalimplicationsoftheirwritings.Itwasthehistoriansandpublicfigureswhorejectedthefactsandrelentlesslyrefusedadequatelytomodifytheharshpost-wartreatieswho“helpedtolosethepeace”aftertheFirstWorldWarandtobringinHitlertorevisethetreatiesbybluster,threatandforce.Andthewriters,publicistsandpublicfigureswhoaretodaytryingtoblackoutthefactsrelativetoresponsibilityforWorldWarIIanditsconsequencesarethepersonswhoaregettingtheworldreadyforthethirdWorldWar,worldchaos,andtheinevitabletriumphofworldCommunismifanyconsiderablenumberofpeoplesurvivethewar.

Themostactivegroupinthisfieldofendeavorisanorganizationwhich,withcharacteristicbrazenness,designatesitselfastheSocietyforthePreventionofWorldWarIII,thoughitmightmoreaccuratelybecalled“TheSocietyfortheInevitableAssuranceofWorldWarIII”andofRussianvictorytherein.Itoperatesbehindsuchrespectable“fronts”asMarkVanDoren,buttheactiveforcesarethesameoldwarhorseswhoespousedoctrinessimilarorcomparabletothoseofDr.RichardBrickner,whoimpliedthattheGermannationmustbeexterminatedbecauseitisincurablywarlike—EdgarAnselMowrer,L.M.Birkhead,LouisNizer,WilliamL.Shirer,RexStout,WilliamB.Ziff,CliftonUtley,andthelike.IntheirpublicationstheyfollowthelineofLordVansittart,PaulWinkler,andothersoftheirstripe,whocontendthatGermanyhaslaunchedmostofthethewarsinwesternsocietysincethedaysofTacitusandArminius.TheynotonlyattackandsmearauthorswhoseektothrowsomelightoftruthonpastandcurrenthistorybutalsoassailgovernmentalmeasureswhichmightrestoretheContinentaleconomyandpolityWestofRussiaandmakeitan

effectiveblocagainstRussianexpansioninthisarea.AnycivilizedattitudetowardsGermanyinthepost-warperiod,suchasthatrecommendedinFredaUtley’sHighCostofVengeance,isespeciallyanathematothem.Thefollowingreadilyaccessiblefactsexposethehollowshamintheirwholeframeofreference.

Therehavebeentwooutstandingstudiesofthefrequencyofwarsinmoderntimesandofthedegreeofparticipationoftheleadingnationstherein—PartIIofVolumeIIIofPitirimSorokin’sSocialandCulturalDynamics;andChapterIXofVolumeIofQuincyWright’sAStudyofWar.Bothoftheseauthorsareratherintenselyanti-Germanandvehementlyinterventionist.LetusseehowwelltheybearoutVansittart’spersistentobsessionthatGermanyis“themotherofwar.”

Coveringtheperiodfromthetwelfthcenturyto1925,Sorokinpresentsthefollowinglistofpercentagesofthetotalyearsstudiedinwhichtheleadingnationshavebeenatwar:

CountryPercentofyearsatwar

SpainPolandEnglandFranceRussiaHollandItalyGermany

6758565046443628

AsSorokinconcludes(page352),thefiguresshow“thatGermanyhashadthesmallestandSpainthelargestpercentofyearswithwar.”Ofallthenationspoliticallyandmilitarilyimportantinrecenttimes,Vansittart’sownEnglandstandsattheheadofthelistforwarlikeactivities.EvenHolland,“themotherofpeace,”hasparticipatedinwarfarmorefrequentlythanGermany.

Inhisefforttoestimatetherelativebellicosityoftheleadingcountries,ProfessorWrightdealswiththeperiodfrom1480to1940.Hefindsthatthereweresome278warsinvolvingtheEuropeancountriesduringthisperiod.Thepercentageofparticipationbytheprincipalstatesisasfollows:

“England,28;France,26;Spain,23;Russia,22;Austria,19;Turkey,15;Poland,11;Sweden,9;Italy,

9;Netherlands,8;Germany(includingPrussia),8;andDenmark,7.”(Page221)

Thisshowsthat,inmoderntimes,Englandhasbeenoutinfrontinpointofrelativebellicosityamongthenations,whileGermanyandtheNetherlandsstandatthebottomofthelist,nexttoDenmark.EventhislistbyProf.WrightdoesnotrevealthefullresponsibilityofEnglandforwarsinmoderntimes,forithasbeenthewiseandshrewdpolicyofBritishdiplomacytogetothernationstofightBritain’swars,whenpossible.

Wenowcometothefourthandfinallineofdefenseoftheshocktroopsoftheblackout.TheArmy,NavyandCongressionalReportsonPearlHarbor,Morgenstern’sbook,andparticularlyDr.Beard’svolumeonPresidentRooseveltandtheComingoftheWar,1941,havemadeitimpossibleanylongertodenythefactthat,asClareBootheLuceputitattheRepublicanNationalConventionof1944:“PresidentRooseveltliedusintowar.”So,insteadofcontinuingtheformerargumentfortheunswervingintegrityandveracityoftheChief,thedefendersoftheRooseveltlegendnowtakethelinethat:“Sure,PresidentRooseveltliedabouthisforeignpolicy,butjustthinkwhatanoblecauseheliedfor!”Thislineofdefensehasbeendeveloped,amongothers,byArthurM.Schlesinger,Jr.,RobertE.Sherwood,Gideonse,HenrySteeleCommager,PaulH.Douglas,andProfessorThomasABailey.Thelatterstatestheideamostclearlyandsuccinctlyonpages11–12ofhisTheManintheStreet(1948):

“FranklinRooseveltrepeatedlydeceivedtheAmericanpeopleduringtheperiodbeforePearlHarbor.Whenhewarnedthemagainsttheaggressors,hewasbrandedasensationalist.Whenhepointedtotheperilsofstorm-cellarneutrality,hewasbrandedaninterventionist.Whenheurgedadequatearmaments,hewasbrandedawarmonger.Hewasfacedwithaterribledilemma.Ifheletthepeopleslumberinafogofisolation,theymightwellfallpreytoHitler.Ifhecameoutunequivocallyforintervention,hewouldbedefeatedin1940,orshelvedforacandidatemorewillingtoletthemassesenjoytheirfool’sparadise.Ifhewasgoingtoinducethepeopletomoveatall,hewouldhavetotrickthemintoactingfortheirbestinterests,orwhatheconceivedtobetheirbestinterests.Hewaslikethephysicianwhomusttellthepatientliesforthepatient’sowngood.CongresswomanClareBootheLucemissedthepointentirelywhensheviolentlychargedinthecampaignof1944thatRoosevelt‘liedusintoawarbecausehedidnothavethepoliticalcouragetoleadusintoit.’Thelattercoursewouldhavebeenfoolhardyratherthancourageous.Thecountrywasoverwhelminglynon-interventionisttotheverydayofPearlHarborandanovertattempttoleadthepeopleintowarwouldhaveresultedincertainfailureandalmostcertainoustingofRooseveltin1940,withaconsequentdefeatforhisultimateaims.”

InhisvastlypopularwrestlingswiththewraithofHarryHopkins,Sherwoodappearstovindicateandapprovethepoliticallieasasoundtechniqueof

statecraft,admittingthatPresidentRooseveltwouldprobablyhavebeenimpeachedifthepublicandCongresshadknownthetruthabouthisforeignintrigues.ThemainrequirementistheMachiavelliantest,namely,thatthehemustsucceed;inotherwords,itmustbeplausibleenoughtobeacceptedbythepeopleatelectiontime.OneisremindedhereofHitler’sfamouseulogyofthelieinpoliticalstrategyandofhisclassicstatementthat,ifthelieisbigenough,itisverylikelytosucceed,wellborneoutbyprobablythegreatestandmostsuccessfulpoliticallieofallhistory:WinstonChurchill’swhopper—“Giveusthetoolsandwewillfinishthemoff”—madewhenBritainstoodaloneagainstHitler’smilitarymight.Thisputoverlend-lease.Whenthe“finishingoff”came,AmericantroopsactivelyinbattleagainsttheNazisoutnumberedtheBritishbymorethententoone.

WemayillustratethetechniqueandethicsofthepoliticallieasutilizedbyPresidentRooseveltinhisconductofforeignaffairsbyreferencetoperhapsthemostdramaticandcrucialcaseofall.OnSeptember2,1940,asecretagreementwasreachedwithGreatBritainbythetermsofwhichwegaveBritainfiftyDestroyersandreceivedaninety-nineyearleaseofnavalandairbasesfromNewfoundlandtoBritishGuinea.AnofficialconferenceofGovernmentlawyerswasheld,atwhichitwasfullyagreedandconcededthatthisactputtheUnitedStatesintotheWar,bothlegallyandmorally.Oneoftheablestofthelawyerspresentcynicallybutcogentlyobservedthattimesandmethodshadchanged:inoldentimes,whenwarwasdecidedupon,aheraldwassentoutonawhitehorseandwithatrumpettoannouncethenewstothepopulace.Butnow,whenwarwasdeterminedupon,thefactandsupportingdocumentswerelockedinasafeandthepeoplewereassuredthatwarwasmoreremotethanever.

Therehasbeenmuchdebateastowhenweactuallyenteredthewar—atthetimeofgivingtheEnglishmunitionsafterDunkirk,atthetimewestrippedourairdefensesforBritain,atthetimeoftheDestroyerDeal,whenconvoyingwasbeguninthespringof1941,atthetimeoftheembargoonJapaninJuly,1941,orafterPearlHarbor.ThefactisthatthetopcirclesinofficialWashingtonhaddecidedwewereinthewarwhentheDestroyerDealwasconsummated.Twomonthslater,PresidentRooseveltwasdeclaringinhiscampaignspeechatBoston:

“AndwhileIamtalkingtoyoumothersandfathers,Igiveyouonemoreassurance.Ihavesaidthis

before,butIshallsayitagainandagainandagain.Yourboysarenotgoingtobesentintoanyforeignwars.”

Indeed,weactuallycommittedflagrantactsofwarwhenwegavetheBritishavastquantityofmilitarymaterialsimmediatelyafterDunkirk,andwhenwestrippedourairplanedefensestosendplanestoBritain,theactwhichledSecretaryofWarHarryH.Woodring,asapatrioticpublicservant,toresigninprotest.

Inthefullknowledgeofallthis,JudgeRobertH.Jackson,who,asAttorney-Generalin1940,puttherubberstampoflegalapprovalupontheignoringofCongressinthisdecisiveDestroyerrusewhichputourcountryintothewar,couldlatergowithastraightfacetoNuremberganddemandthedeathpenaltyfortheNazileadersbecauseoftheiraggressivepoliciesandthedeceptionoftheGermanpeople.

EvenifweacceptthethesisthatMr.Rooseveltliedforagreatandnoblecause,includingnationalself-preservation,thisideaofexecutiveleadershipviadeceptionandcontrarytothewillofthepeopleraisesaseriousissuerelativetodemocraticgovernment.Theconceptionofanirresponsible“Fuehrer”deceivinghispeople,evenfortheirowngood,wouldhavereceivedheartyapprovalfromHitlerandistheessenceofthetotalitariantechniqueinforeignpolicy—exactlywhatweweresupposedtobefightingagainstinthelatewar.NotonlyHitlerorStalin,butanabsolutemonarchlikeLouisXIV,wouldhavewarmlycommendedthisprocedureanddiplomaticethic.AllofwhichgoestoshowhowfartotalitarianidealspermeatedtheranksofthosewhowereostensiblyorganizingourpowerandmoraletobattleagainstNazism.

Butthenobilityofthe“cause”isspeedilyfadingout.Thecornerstoneofthe“cause”—nationalself-preservation—isnowacrumbledillusion.RoosevelthimselfadmittedthattheAtlanticCharterwasasyntheticfraudandaquasi-forgery.NoneoftheFourFreedomshasbeenrealizedandthesituationinregardtomostofthemisworsethanbefore1939.Thereisneitherfreedom,peace,norplenty,butintolerance,censorship,wrangling,war-mongering,franticandlavishmilitaryoutlaysinpreparationforWorldWarIII,andworld-widehunger,starvationanddisease.TheUnitedNationswasalreadyinaworsestateofdisintegrationbeforethecornerstonehadbeenlaidforitsheadquartersthantheLeagueofNationswasaslateastheEthiopiandebacle.

ThereisnospaceheretoelaborateonthissorrythemeoftheuttercollapseofMr.Roosevelt’sostensiblewarprogram,butsuchHumanEventsLettersasthosebyHenryBeston(April9,1947,andOctober29,1947),byFelixMorley(May21,1947,August13,1947,October1,1947,March24,1948,andMay12,1948),byWilliamHenryChamberlin(April16,1947,October22,1947,December17,1947,andJune30,1948),andbyEdnaLonigan(January1,1947)amplyupholdandestablishtheunwelcomeanddishearteningthesisthatthe“noblecause”forwhichMr.Rooseveltisadmittedtohaveliedsoprofuselyisasmuchafictionastheearlierdogmaofhisunimpeachableveracity.Andforthepresentsorrystateoftheworld,withcivilizationhanginginthebalance,wehavetothankmorethananythingelseMr.Roosevelt’spoliciesatCasablanca,Teheran,QuebecandYalta.AllthisissetforthwithdevastatingforceinMr.Chamberlin’sforthcomingbookonTheSecondCrusade.WilliamNeumann’sMakingthePeacetellshowwelostthepeace.

Indeed,thereisfairlyconclusiveevidence,drawnfromauthenticcapturedPolishdocuments,Roosevelt’sassurancestoAnthonyEdenonhisvisittoWashingtoninDecember,1938,hisstatementtoEdwardBenesatHydeParkinMay,1939,thattheUnitedStateswouldsurelyenteranyEuropeanwaragainstHitler,whatweknowoftheTylerKentcase,andthelike,that,butforMr.Roosevelt’spressureonBritain,FranceandPoland,andhiscommitmentstothembeforeSeptember,1939,especiallytoBritain,andtheirresponsibleanticsofhisagentprovocateur,WilliamC.Bullitt,therewouldprobablyhavebeennoworldwarin1939,or,perhapsformanyyearsthereafter.

Further,ProfessorHansRothfels’bookonGermanOppositiontoHitler(1948),andA.W.Dulles’Germany’sUnderground(1947),revealingRoosevelt’sadamantrefusaltohaveanythingwhatevertodowiththeGermanUndergroundforces,takentogetherwiththeutterlyruthless,irresponsible,anddisastrousCasablancaunconditionalsurrenderprogram,affordgoodgroundforbelievingthatMr.RooseveltwasonlyincidentallyinterestedinspeedilyoverthrowingHitler,butwasmoreconcernedwithprovoking,entering,andprolongingawarwhichwouldaddtohispersonallustreandprolonghistenureofpoliticalpower.

ThesameassumptionisborneoutbytheJapanesesituation,becausePresidentRoosevelthadinhishandsbeforeheleftforYaltamuchthesame

JapanesetermsofpeacewhichweacceptedinAugust,1945.ThiswasbeforeseveralofthebloodiestengagementsinthePacificandoversixmonthsbeforethe“atomizing”ofHiroshimaandNagasaki.AtYaltaRooseveltmadeincredibleconcessionstoStalinwithrespecttobothEuropeandtheFarEastinordertoinduceStalintodeclarewaronJapan,thoughRooseveltknewatthetimethattheJapanesecravedpeaceasabeatennationandthattherewasnottheslightestneedforRussianinterventiontocrushJapan.

Itwillbeinterestingtoawaitthenextredoubtwhichwillbethrownupbythe“blackoutboys,”otherthantostepupthetraditionalprogramofslander,intimidationandpersecutionbytheSmearbund.ItmaytakethelineadoptedbyEdmundBlairBollesinhisreviewofDr.Beard’sbookintheNewRepublicofJuly5,1948,namelythatitisunfairtoattackMr.Roosevelt,whatevertheextentofhis“dissembling,”forwewouldhavebeenboundtoentertheWar“nomatterwhowasPresident.”

ThereislittledoubtthatwewouldhaveenteredthewarifWendellWillkiehadbeenelectedPresident,forheadmittedwhentestifyingonLend-Leasethatallhisoppositiontowarduringthecampaignof1940wasonlydeceptive“campaignoratory.”ButthereislittlereasontobelievethatwewouldhaveenteredtheWarifRobertA.TafthadbeenelectedPresident.TaftwasvirtuallyofferedtheRepublicannominationbythesamepersonalitiesandforceswhichlaterputoverWillkieifhewouldsellouttotheseaboardinterventionistandAnglophileinterests.This,asagoodpatriot,SenatorTaftrefusedtodo.

ThethesisthatwecannotelectaPresidentwhowillputtheinterestsofhiscountryaheadofhispersonalpoliticalambitionsandtheimportuningofpressuregroupsathomeandsupplicantforeignnationsisanassertionthatIamstilltooold-fashionedandoptimistictoaccept.Indeed,theexampleofPresidentHooverdisprovesthisargument.InJanuary,1932,SecretaryofStateHenryL.StimsonopenlyplayedhisLuciferhandinFarEasterndiplomacy.HetookHoovertothemountaintopand,evenifhedidnotpromisehim“allthekingdomsofthisworld,”hedidmakeitevidentthatMr.HoovercouldrecouphispoliticalfortunesandhaveeveryprospectofreelectionintheautumnifhewouldmakewaronJapan.ButHooverwouldhavenothingtodowiththeidea.Ayearlater,Mr.StimsonhadarendezvouswithMr.Hoover’snewly-electedsuccessoratHydeParkandhadnodifficultyinsellinghisbillofgoods.From

thattimeonward,Mr.Roosevelthadan“aceinthehole”wheneverheneededaforeignwartorehabilitatehispoliticalprospectsathome.Heplayedtheaceinthesummerandautumnof1941.

Someideaofthefactors,forces,pressuregroups,andpersonnelresponsibleforrestrainingthepublicationanddiscussionofthetruthwithrespecttothecausesofthesecondWorldWar,aswellasthemethodsemployedbytheshocktroopsoftheblackout,canbeobtainedfromJohnT.Flynn’sbrochure,TheSmearTerror(obtainablefromtheauthor,15East40thStreet,NewYorkCity);fromtheconcludingpagesofmychapteron“Twentieth-CenturyAmericanHistorians”inthebookonTwentiethCenturyAmerica,editedbyJosephS.RoucekandpublishedbythePhilosophicalLibrary(NewYork,1950);fromDr.JohnH.Sachs’bookletonHatchetMen(obtainablefromLincolnWayBooklets,NewOxford,AdamsCounty,Pennsylvania);andfromOswaldG.Villard’sarticleon“Book-Burning—U.S.Style”intheProgressive,April28,1947.Mostoftheseblackoutorganizationsareoffshoots,affiliates,orpost-warsuccessorsoftheWarWriters’Board,whichwaspresidedoverbyRexTodhunterStout,awriterofdetectivestories,whoseclaimstocompetenceinhistoricalmattersequalthoseofadishwasherinaBoweryrestauranttoamasteryofhydraulicengineering.

Ithasbeencontendedbysomereadersofearliereditionsofthisbrochurethatthereis,really,noconspiracytopreventthetruthfrombeingknownabouttheresponsibilityfortheSecondWorldWar—itisjustamatterofhonestdifferenceofopinion.NobodywhohasbeenthroughthereactionsandtechniquesemployedbyopponentsofRevisionisminbothworldwarscantakethisargumentseriously.Therewassomesmearinginthe1920’sandthereissomehonestdifferenceofopiniontoday.Butthesituationisadifferenceinkindaswellasindegree.Inthe1920’s,editorsandbookpublisherswelcomedRevisionistopinions,articlesandbooks,eventhoughtheymightcriticizethem.Revisionismwasattackedbycounterargumentsandatleastallegedfacts.NotevensodeviousasophistasBernadotteSchmittwouldhavetriedtotossoffSidneyFay’sworkas“twoweirdvolumes,”norwouldevensuchdiehardsasWilliamStearnsDavis,CharlesDownerHazen,FrankMalloyAnderson,orE.RaymondTurnerhavedaredtodisposeofCharlesC.Tansill’svolumeas“afreneticattack”onWoodrowWilson.Therewasafairlywholesomegive-and-

takeintheRevisionismofthe1920’s,anditwasrarethataperson’scharacterandhereditywereimpeachedbecauseofhisviewson1914and1917.Michelson,Goebbels,Winchell,Carlson,andothers,hadnotyetperfectedthesmeartechnique,andsomeofthemorepowerfulpressuregroupsnowconspiringtopreventthedisclosureoftruthwerethenthemostardentandpowerfulsupportersofRevisionism.Further,andthisisveryimportant:inthe1920’swritersonwarresponsibilityweremainlyexpressingopinionsonthedeedsandmotivesofforeignstatesmen,publicistsandscholars.TheopponentsofRevisionisminthe1920’shadnoneedtolieandsmeartocoveruptheirowndelinquenciesandmendacityinregardthecausesandconductoftheFirstWorldWar.Thereverseofthisistruetoday.Therearefewoftheapologistsormembersofthepresent-daySmearbundwhodidnothavesomeresponsibilityforbringingonthewar,fordirectingorlaudingit,forpubliclyingduringthewar,orforgeneratinganddisseminatingthewar-timemythology.

III.ChameleonHistoriography

Millis,Walter.ThisisPearl!TheUnitedStalesandJapan—1941.Pp.xiii,384.NewYork:WilliamMorrow&Company,1947.$4.00

Asacontributiontohistoricalknowledgeandperspective,thisbookdoesnotdeserveseriousnotice.Inthereviewer’sopinion,itdoesnotfaintlycomparewithGeorgeMorgenstern’sbookonPearlHarborfromthestandpointofintegrityofpurpose,thoroughnessofdocumentation,orlogicandclarityofconclusions.But,sinceitwillprobablybeexploitedbythemyth-mongersforyears,thenatureofthebookshouldbeclearlyrevealed.Here,thisexposuremust,necessarily,bebriefandinadequate,foranythoroughrevelationandrefutationofallofMr.Millis’errors,evasions,andtricksofthetradewouldrequireasmuchspaceasthebookitself.

Thereviewerhasnodesiretohandlethisreviewasanargumentumadhominem,butWalterMillisisthesortofwriterwhosebooksofthemomentcanbeproperlyappraisedonlyagainstthebackgroundofhispastliteraryproductsandshiftingideologies.Inthe1030’s,hestoodforthasprobablyourleadingpopulardebunkerofrecentAmericanwars,andinthisworkheperformedamostcommendabletaskofpublicintellectualsanitation.In1931,hebroughtoutTheMartialSpirit,whichremovedthehaloofheroismfromtheSpanish-AmericanWaranditsleadingparticipants.In1935,hisRoadtoWardidanequallyfinejobonWoodrowWilson,ColonelHouse,andtheFirstWorldWar.

Inasmallerbook,ViewedwithoutAlarm:EuropeToday,publishedin1937,Millispursuedthesameskepticalline.Thisbook,itispertinenttonote,isnotnowlistedamonghispublicationsinhisentryinWho’sWhoinAmerica.Init,hevigorouslyattackedthewar-mongersandalarmists,thoroughlycommendedBritishappeasementofHitlerandtheAxis,andlookedforwardsympatheticallyandhopefullytothefutureNaziunificationofCentralandBalkanEurope.Ina

chaptersignificantlyentitled“HowtoStayOutofWarandLikeIt,”wefindthefollowingremarkablestatement:“IftheNaziscancreateagoingeconomicandsocialsysteminCentralEurope,itwillbe—howeverunpleasantforthelessernationswhichitswallows—notamenace,butamarketandastabilizingforcefortherestoftheworld”(p.53).Themaindanger,Millisgoesontopointout,isthattheNazis,throughrashnessorimpatience,mayfailinthisbenignmissionofunificationandthuslayEuropeopentowarandanarchy.

Allthiswaswritten,itisinstructivetorecall,afterHitlerhadwithdrawnGermanyfromtheLeagueofNations,afterhehadsetuphisconcentrationcampsandcarriedonhisworstpersecutionoftheJews,afterhehadbegunthesweepingrearmamentofGermany,afterhehaddefiedtheTreatyofVersailles,afterhehadoccupiedtheRhineland,andafterhehadstartedtointerveneintheSpanishCivilWarandputonhisdressrehearsalforWorldWarII.Indeed,MillisenvisagesinthecommendableNaziprogramofunifyingCentralandEasternEuropethepossibleoccupationofCzechoslovakiaandPoland(p.54);inotherwords,virtuallyeverythingwhichHitleractuallydiddowntoandincludingtheoutbreakofwar.

Apparently,astheNazisproceededtofollowuptheprogramofunificationandstabilizationpraisedandrecommendedbyMillis,hebecamealarmedand,whentheNazisinvadedWesternEuropeinthespringof1940,Millisturnedviolentlyagainstthem,andbecameoneofthosemostferventlydemandingourarmedinterventiontostaytheNazitide.The“benevolent”Nazischemeofunificationandstabilization,asof1937,thenbecamethegreatestmenacetocivilizationsincethedaysofGenghisKhanandTamerlane.So,inthesameyear(1940),thereappearedMillis’WhyEuropeFights,interpretingthebattleagainsttheAxisasastruggleofpureandlimpididealismagainststarkbrutalityandbarbarism.Milliscontinuedhispropagandaworkduringthewar,culminatinginhisTheLastPhase:TheAlliedVictoryinWesternEurope(1946).InreviewingthisbookintheAmericanHistoricalReview(January,1947),ProfessorJ.D.HillgaveanexcellentsuccinctappraisalofMillis’careerandachievementsasawriteronworldaffairs:

“WithTheMartialSpirit(1931)andTheRoadtoWar(1935),bothofthembookclubselections,WalterMillisprovedhimselftobeacarelesshistorianbutacompetentpropagandistfortheisolationistidea.CameMunich,andhewasoneofthefirstpublicistsandjournaliststodoaflipflop.HisWhyEuropeFights(1940)willprobablybeviewedbysomefuturehistorianasafactorinAmerica’snew

roadtowarinWorldWarII.TheOfficeofWarInformationknewagood,instinctivepropagandistwhentheysawone,andquitewiselysoughtMr.Millisasaconsultant.Thislatestbook,TheLastPhase,istheresult.”

ThisisPearl!isconceivedinthesamespiritasthatwhichmotivatedWhyEuropeFights,andTheLatestPhase.Itisanunabashedeffort(1)toglorifythewarwhichresultedsodisastrouslyforusthatwearealreadyonthevergeofthethirdWorldWartoeradicateitsallegedlyunfortunateresults;(2)towhitewashtheRooseveltAdministrationandourmilitaryandnavalauthoritiesatWashingtonbyclearingthemofanyseriousresponsibilityforPearlHarbor;and(3)tosaddlemostoftheblamethatcanbeassignedtoAmericansontheunfortunateanddeliberatelyneglectedcommandersatPearlHarbor,AdmiralHusbandE.KimmelandGeneralWalterCampbellShort.

Inexecutingthistaskofwhitewashing,Millisresortstoeveryknowndeviceofevasion,propaganda,andsmearing.ThebookwouldprovideaRomanholidayforClydeMillerandhistechniqueofpropagandaanalysis.

Japanisinvariablyportrayedasthesinisteraggressor.ThereisnorecognitionofthematerialbasisforJapaneseexpansioninAsia,ofherdangerouspositioninfrontofCommunistRussia,ofourpastencouragementofJapan,orofthefactthatweeverfoughtaMexicanWar.China,agiantwithvastterritoryandapopulationof400,000,000,whichcouldhavedrivenJapanintotheseaatanytimeitcouldhavecurbedpublicvenalityandanarchyinChinesenationalaffairs,ispicturedasthepitifulandhaplessvictimofoverwhelmingJapaneseaggressivepower.

TheUnitedStatesappearsalwaysasthebenevolentpatronofpeaceandjusticeintheFarEast.ItisnotmadeclearthatwehelpedtosetJapanonherfeetasamilitaryandimperialisticpowerandencouragedherearlierdeedsofvalor,includingcondoningher“sneakattack”onPortArthurin1904.Thereisnorevelationthatthe“Stimsondoctrine”wasamenaceandpersistentobstacletopeaceintheFarEastfrom1932to1941,thatthisdoctrinewasfaithfullyfollowedbyRooseveltfromhisinaugurationtoPearlHarbor,orthatwelentnoaidtotheeffortstoarriveatadecentsettlementofSino-Japanesefriction—alltoooftenfrustratingtheeffortsmadebyothers.

MillisinvariablyinterpretsJapanesemovestopreservepeacewiththeUnitedStatesin1941asahypocriticalandcontemptiblesmoke-screentohidetheir

determinationtoattacktheUnitedStatesassoonaspracticable.ThishedoesthoughheknowsthatwehadcrackedtheJapanesecodeandwerecertainthattheJapanesepeacemoves,suchastheKonoegestures,weresincerelydesignedtobringaboutanadjustmentofinterests.EvenTojowaswillingtohaltthefleetsteamingtoPearlHarborifsomeunderstandingcouldbereachedwhichwouldpermitJapantosaveitsfaceinnegotiationsforanagreementwithChina.

ThereisnoadequaterecognitionthatwereallyopenedwaronJapanbytheoilembargoofJuly,1941,andthatAmericanArmyandNavyleadersbothrecognizedthistobethecase,thoughevenMillisdoesnottrytodenythecriticalimportanceoftheembargomove.NorisitmadeclearthatwarwithJapanwasactuallyenvisagedattheNewfoundlandmeetingbetweenChurchillandRooseveltinAugust,1941,afactwhichDavisandLindleyinadvertentlyblurtedoutintheirsupposedlyquasi-officialdefenseoftheRooseveltwarpolicy(HowWarCame,pp.9–13).SecretaryHull’sultimatumofNovember26,1941,whichhighAdministrationofficialsandtheArmyandNavychiefswerefullyawaremeantwarwithJapan,isdismissedasifithadnorealinfluenceuponeventsfromNovember26thtoDecember7th(p.115).

MillissmearstheAmericanopponentsofwarfrom1939to1941astraitorstoAmericaninterestsandsafety,menoflowmentality,anti-Semites,andpro-Fascists,thoughitisdoubtfulwhetheranyleadingfigureamongtheso-calledIsolationistseverwentasfarinpraiseofHitlerandhisobjectivesasMillisdidin1937.OurInterventionists,ontheotherhand,arewarmlyhailedasfar-sightedpatriots,whowiselyunderstoodthatonlywarcouldsaveusfromaliteralinvasionbytheAxisandthetotaldestructionoftheAmericanwayoflife.Itisinterestingtonotethat,in1937,MilliswroteofBritish“Isolationism”and“Appeasement”:“Itisanexample,itseemstome,whichtheUnitedStatesmightwellemulate.”

WhenMillisspecificallycomestoPearlHarbor,headdstothisoverallquasi-Persian“lightanddarkness”frameofreference,theage-oldcavilloustechniqueof“dust-throwing”anddivertingthediscussiontoirrelevantandextraneousmatters.WhenitbecomesdifficultforhimtofacethespecificfactsaboutPearlHarbor,hedistractsthereader’sattentiontopubliceventsallovertheworldand,wheneventhesearenotsufficient,tothemoreglamorousandexoticdoingsintheNewYorktheatersandnightclubs.

ThoughevenMillisrevealsthat,inJanuary-February,1941,Rooseveltandhisentourage,AmbassadorGrew,SecretariesKnoxandStimson,andthehighArmyandNavyofficials,recognizedthat,iftheJapaneseevershouldspringasurpriseattackontheUnitedStates,itwouldprobablytakeplaceatPearlHarbor,hegoesontoassumeandassertthat,whentheattackactuallybecameimminentinlateNovember,1941,noneofthemcouldpossiblyhaveimaginedthattheJapswouldstrikeatPearlHarbor.Indeed,forthemtohavedonesowould,hetellsus,havebeen“incredible.”This,despitethefactthat,hoursbeforetheattackcame,wehadpickedupanddecodedaJapanesemessageindicatingthatanattackwouldbelikelytofallonPearlHarbor—tosaynothingofamassofotherearlierevidenceastoJapaneseintentionsonPearlHarbor.Millistellsusnothingofthedastardlyefforttocompelofficerstochangetheirtestimonyrelativetothecrucial“EastWindRain”messagewhichrevealedtheimpendingJapaneseattackasearlyasDecember4th,orthedeliberateattempttodestroytheevidencethatsuchamessagehadeverbeenreceived.

Yet,accordingtoMillis,althoughnobodyintopofficialcirclesinWashington,elaboratelyinformedalmosthourlyaboutJapaneseattackplansanddevelopments,couldhaveexpectedthattheJapanesewouldmakeasurpriseattackonPearlHarbor,nevertheless,KimmelandShort,whohadbeendeprivedofallthisinformationfrominterceptedJapanesesecretmessages,shouldcertainlyhaveforeseenthePearlHarborattackandtakenallpossibleprecautionsagainstit,withouthavinganydefiniteordersfromWashingtontodoso.Shortisportrayedashavingfallenintohisown“trap,”butthetrapactuallyturnsouttobetheactionwhichWashingtonsuggestedthathetakeatPearlHarborandwasimplicitlyapprovedbybothMarshallandStark.

WewouldnotlearnfromMillisthathighmilitaryauthoritiesinWashingtonknew,atleastfifteenhoursbeforetheJapanesestruck,thatwarwasimmediatelyimminent,butfailedtocommunicatewithKimmelandShortandevenhushedupthisinformation,asifafraidthatitwouldleakout,arousepublicexcitement,andforceactionwhichmightwarntheJapaneseandhalttheirattack.

ThoughKimmelandShortcouldandshouldhavebeenwarnedintimetohavesavedPearlHarborfromthecompletedisasterwhichitsuffered,MillisholdsthatGeneralMarshall’smessagetoShortwouldhavebeen“toolateanyway,”whensentatnoononthe7th.Hedoesnotrevealthatitcouldhave

beensentearlyinthemorningofthe7th,longbeforedawnatPearlHarbor.Indeed,ifGeneralMarshallandColonel(nowGeneral)WalterBedellSmithhadmaintainedthealertnessandefficiencywhichtheyknewthecrisiswarranted,itcouldhavebeensentonthenightofDecember6th.NordoesMillisofferanyexplanationofwhyMarshall,withhisallegedlyfabulousmemory,couldnotrememberwherehewasonthenightofSaturday,December6th,themostdramaticandcriticalnightofhislife,whyhewasnoteasilyaccessibleearlySundaymorning,orwhyhedidnotsendhisbelatedwarningmessagetoShortimmediatelybyquicktelephoneinsteadofbyordinarycommercialradio,notevenmarked“urgent”—justashemighthavesentabirthdaymessagetohisgrandmother.

ThoughwewereonceledtobelievethatourdefensewasparalyzedbecauseofbacchanalianfestivitiesamongtheofficersandmenatPearlHarborthenightbeforetheJapaneseattack,Milliscannotproduceevidencetosubstantiatethis.ButhedoesrevealthatmuchofofficialWashingtonwasgailycavortingonthenightofDecember6th,eventhosewhohadgoodreasontofearthattheJapanesewouldprobablystrikeatPearlHarborearlythenextday.ThereisnohintinMillis’bookthatMr.Roosevelt’sappealtotheJapaneseEmperortohelppreservepeace,dispatchedat9p.m.onDecember6th,wasunsurpassedfordeliberateandcynicalhypocrisyinthewholehistoryofhumandiplomacy.

EventheDemocratmajorityoftheCongressionalCommitteeonPearlHarbor,despiteitsstrainingtopresentacleanbillofhealthforRooseveltandHull,makesnosuchexculpationoftheAdministrationasMillishereattempts.Astudyofthemajorityreportalone,leavingasidethecausticRepublicanminority’sreport,showshowshallowandmisleadingisMillis’essayinapologetics.

ItisfortunateforsuchoftheAmericanpublicaswishtobeinformedaboutoneofthemostdramaticandcriticaleventsinallourhistorythatCharlesAustinBeard’sdefinitiveworkonPresidentRooseveltandtheComingoftheWar,1941,hasnowbeenpublished,andthatatleastthreeotherbooksbydistinguishedhistoriansareinactivepreparationonthesamesubject.

IntheNewYorkHerald-Tribune“Books”MagazineofApril11,1948,MillisreviewedDr.Beard’sbook.HemadenoattempttomeetorrefutethevastarrayoffactsassembledbyBeard.Instead,hesoughttodiscreditthebookby

smearingitasaproductofthe“Deviltheoryofhistory,”thoughBeard’shandlingofFranklinD.RooseveltisamasterpieceoffrigidhistoricalobjectivitycomparedwithMillis’treatmentofWilsonandHouseinhisRoadtoWar.Otherwise,Millisonlyshadow-boxedwithBeard,mainlyconcerningBeard’scriticismofRooseveltandHullfornotmakingpublicournegotiationswithJapanin1941.MillismadeagreatadoovertheallegationthattheJapanesehadrequestedsecrecyonthismatter.ThisisanadmirableexampleofMillis’techniqueofdust-throwinganddistractionfromtherealpointatissue.Here,whatmatteredwasnotwhethertheJapaneserequestedsecrecy,buttheundeniablefactthatRooseveltandHullknewfromthecrackedJapanesecodethattheJapanesepeaceeffortsweresincereandreasonablebut,nevertheless,rebuffedthemandprovokedtheJapaneseattackonPearlHarbor.ThereisnohintofthisbasicfactinMillis’review.

IV.LewisMumford’sIronCurtain

TheEditoroftheNewYorkTimes:Itisnotmypracticetowriteletterstonewspapers,buttheannouncementin

yourcolumnsthatLewisMumfordhasresignedinprotestovertheawardofaGoldMedaltoDr.CharlesAustinBeardbytheNationalInstituteofArtsandLettersforthebesthistoricalworkbyanAmericanduringthelastdecaderaisessomeimportantissuesregardingthefreedomofwritingandhistoricaltruth.

ItisobviousthatDr.Beardneedsnodefense,norwillhebeharmedbyMumford’sill-conceivedonslaught.Indeed,IhavewrittenDr.BeardcongratulatinghimmoreheartilyuponMumford’sresignationthanuponthereceiptofthemedal.NordoIhaveanyunfriendlyfeelingforLewisMumfordpersonally.Quitethecontrary.

Ifirstmethimbackin1919,whenhehadjustreturnedfromthefeetofGeddesandBranfordinEnglandandIwasoneoftheyounger“foundingfathers”oftheNewSchoolforSocialResearch.Ihavealwaysadmiredhiswritingswhenhelimitedhimselftothefieldsinwhichhehashighprofessionalcompetence:ecology,urbanplanning,thehistoryoftechnology,andappliedaesthetics.IamindebtedtohimforafinechapteronGeddesandBranfordintheHistoryofSociology,whichIrecentlyedited.Ihaveonlybeenirkedbyhispontifical,dogmatic,andintolerantpronouncementsonAmericaninstitutionalhistoryandinternationalrelations,fieldsinwhichhehasnottheslightestclaimtomorethansuperficialandamateurishknowledge.

Mr.Mumford’spresumptioninassailingDr.BeardforworkintherealmsofAmericanhistoryandworldaffairsrevealsaninterestingcleavageandcontrastinhismentalpatterns.Inecologyandurbanplanning,whereMr.Mumfordisarecognizedworldauthority,heapproachestheworksanddictaofsuchmastersasGeddesandBranfordwithhushedreverenceandworshipfulobeisance.Yet,

whenheentersthearenaofAmericanhistoryandworldpolitics,whereheisanaivetyro,hehasnohesitationindamningaudaciouslytheworksofBeard,whoisasgreatamasterhereasareGeddesandBranfordinurbanplanningandsocialecology.ThereismuchmorereasonforMumfordtoapproachtheworksofBeardwithbatedbreaththanthoseofGeddes.

AnyassertionbyMumford,oranybodyelse,thatDr.Beardisan“Isolationist”ispalpablenonsense.FewAmericanshavebeenassociatedmorethoroughlywithinternationalthoughtandexperiences.Asayoungman,BeardhelpedtofoundRuskinCollege,Oxford.Hehastravelledwithgreatprestigeandinfluence,asan“elderstatesman”andofficialadviser,fromTokyotoBelgrade.HehasvisitedandbeenheldinhighesteeminaboutasmanyforeigncentersasLewisMumfordhaseverevenreadabout.TheworstthatcanbesaidaboutDr.BeardisthatheunderstandsthatasoundinternationalattitudeandpolicycanbewarmlysupportedwithoutdescendingtoidiocyortreasonorabandoningthoseAmericantraditionsuponwhichourstrengthandnationalprestigehavebeenconstructed.TheBeardBasicHistoryoftheUnitedStateswaswrittenmainlytoclarifyandelucidatethesetraditionsandtoexposetheperversionsofhistoricalfactsembodiedinsuchbooksasWalterLippmann’sU.S.ForeignPolicy.Personally,IwasamazedattherestraintshownbytheBeardsinthisbook,inthelightoftheprovocationtopolemics.

Thereismuchexcitementhereatpresentoverthe“IronCurtain”andtheblanketingoftruthinSovietRussia,whichevenliberalwell-wishersofRussiamustdeplore.ButitisevenmoreimportantthatweshouldbattleagainsttheerectionofanyironcurtainagainsttruthhereintheUnitedStates.AndthatisjustwhatMumfordandhislike,wittinglyorunwittingly,areseekingtosetuprighthereinourmidst.

AsIseeit,themaindifferencebetweenMumfordandHitlerandStalinisthatthelattertwohavehadthephysicalpowertodowhatMumfordwouldliketodobutcannot,asyet,namely,toshutoffthefreeplayofideas.Nevertheless,ifwedonothaveconcentrationcampsandbarbedwire,wealreadyhavetheSmearbund,theactivitiesofwhicharewellrepresentedbyMumford’srecentoutburst.AnyAmericanhistorianorpublicistwhoriskslettingineversoslightarayoftruthontheAmericanorworldscenetodayplacesinjeopardynotonlyhisprofessionalreputationbutevenhislivelihoodaswell.Thisisastrange

outcomeofaworldcrusadeinbehalfofthe“FourFreedoms.”MyonlypersonalquarrelwithMr.Mumfordisthatheapparentlydoesnot

havethecourageofhisemotions.In1939,hewroteabookentitledMenMustAct,theperusalofwhichrevealedthatwhathemeantbyactingwasfighting.Inotherwords,“menmustfight.”Accordingly,onewouldhaveexpectedthat,whenwarbrokeoutin1939,Mr.Mumfordwould,ifhecouldnotbeacceptedforactivecombatduty,haveatleastinsisteduponambulanceorRedCrossdutyattheextremefrontlines.Instead,heacceptedaverysafeandpleasantpostasprofessorofhumanitiesatLelandStanfordUniversity,apointaboutasremoteaspossiblefromtheEuropeanbattlefields.ThereisnodoubtinmymindthatMumforddidmoregoodforthehumanraceatStanfordthanhecouldhaveachievedoperatingatankorbomber,buthisbehaviorfailedtoaccordwithhisideologicalprogramorhisheatedexhortationstofellow-Americans.Whilewemaynotapprovetheideasorbehaviorofwar-mongeringrenegadepacifists,likePaulH.Douglas,wecanatleastadmiretheirconsistencyingettingoutonthebattle-lineandexposingthemselvestoenoughgunfiretogivethemamilitaryrecordthatwouldbearealpoliticalassetinpost-wardays.

V.Goebbels,OurTotalitarianLiberalsandthe

PermeationofTotalitarianIdeas

ItissaidthatJosephGoebbelsonceboastedthat,eventhoughtheNaziswereovercomeonthefieldofbattle,theywouldconquerthevictorsinspirit.Inotherwords,theconquerersoftheNaziswould,invictory,takeovertheidealsandpracticesoftheNazis.ThisiswhatGoebbelsboastedofanditwaswhatIfeared.IelaboratedonthisthemeasamainreasonwhyweshouldnotentertheSecondWorldWarinanaddressdeliveredbeforetheInstituteofPoliticsattheUniversityofVirginiainJune,1940,andembodiedtheideainanarticleintheVirginiaQuarterlyReview(Autumn,1940).ThereismuchevidencethatGoebbels’ominousboastisprovingalltootrue.Ourso-calledTotalitarianLiberals,whoformedthespearheadofthedrivetoinvolvethiscountryintheSecondWorldWar,haveespousedalltoomanyofthetotalitariannotionswhichweweremobilizedtocombat.

WehavejustnotedthetotalitariantaintintheattitudeofLewisMumfordtowardsfreedomofthoughtandwriting,butperhapsthebestexampleofthewayinwhichTotalitarianLiberalshave,consciouslyorunconsciously,espousedattitudesstrikinglysimilartothoseoftheNazisisaffordedbyGideonse’sreviewofDr.Beard’sPresidentRooseveltandtheComingoftheWar,1941,intheNewLeaderofJune12,1948,towhichwehavemadereferenceearlier.

Inthefirstplace,theattitudeofGideonsetowardsPresidentRooseveltstrikinglyresemblestheframeofmindthatGoebbelsmanifestedtowardsHitlerinhisrecentlypublishedDiary,namely,thatthe“Fuehrer”coulddonowrong,eventhoughdeceivinghispeopleandthwartingthewilloftheoverwhelmingmajorityofthem.ThereisinGideonse’sreviewastrongundercurrentofthesamecontemptfortheintelligenceofthemasseswhichGoebbelsfrequently

expressed.WhileanypolicywhichaFuehreradoptstosavethedumbmassesfromthemselvesandtheirfollyappearstobepraiseworthy,Gideonsesmearstheconductofthosewhosoughtbetween1937and1941topreservetheAmericanconstitutionalsystemanddemocraticpracticesasfoul“skullduggery.”

NothingstandsoutmorestronglyintheGideonseblastagainstDr.Beardthanhisimpatiencewithlegislativerestraintsontheexecutive.Theremovalofsuchrestraintsisaninvariableaccompanimentoftotalitarianpolitics.DespitethefactthatGideonsehasprosperedexceptionallywellpersonallyunderourconstitutionalsystem,herecursfrequentlyallthroughhislongreviewtosuchexpressionsofimpatiencewiththeAmericanConstitutionas:“theweaknessofourdomesticandconstitutionalposition,”theinadequacy“ofourconstitutionalprinciplesgoverningthewarpower,”“ourownconstitutionalweaknesses,”and“ourobsoleteconstitutionalprovisions.”ItisevidentevenfromthecontextthatwhatGideonsemeansbyourobsoleteandoutwornconstitutionalsystemisthelimitationsimposedbyourConstitutionupontheirresponsibleuseofpowerbythePresidentinforeignrelations.WhatGideonsewishesisaremovaloftherestraintsuponthefreedomofthePresidenttodojustashedesireswithoutbeinghamperedbytheoppositionofanimpliedlystupidandpatrioticCongress.InthismatterIdonothavetorelyonthecontextoruponreadingbetweenthelines,forIpersonallylistenedtoGideonseasheelaboratedthisthemeatgreatlengthandwithmuchheat.Tothisproposalofcompleteexecutiveirresponsibilityinhandlingforeignaffairs,Hitlerwouldhavecried“Bravo,”anditwasinthisspiritthatGoeringburneddowntheReichstagbuildings.

BelievingasIdointhecompletefreedomofspeechandwriting,IhavenoobjectiontotheholdingorexpressionofsuchpoliticalopinionsbyGideonse.ButIdosubmitthatsuchapoliticalphilosophyisstrangelyunsuitableandincongruousonthepartofapersonwhothrowshisweightandinfluencearoundaspromiscuouslyatFreedomHouseasdoesGideonse.FreedomHouse,ofwhichGideonseiscurrentlythepresident,issupposedtobeconspicuouslydevotedtocombattingallphasesofFuehrerphilosophyandpractice.Gideonse’swarmdevotiontoexecutiveirresponsibilityandabsolutismwas,ofcourse,developedwithoutanyconsciousimitationofNaziphilosophyandmaybearesultofthefactthat,asProfessorCarltonJ.H.Hayespointsout:“PoliticaldemocracymadeslowerandmorehaltingprogressintheNetherlandsthanin

anyothercountryofWesternEurope.Downto1917,onlyabaremajorityofthemalepopulationovertwenty-fiveyearsofagewasprivilegedtovoteorholdpublicoffice,andthesovereignstillexercisedtherightofinitiatingandvetoinglegislation.”Atanyrate,itwouldnotbeinappropriatetoremindGideonsethatHolland,thoughoccupiedbytheNazilegions,bravelyresistedtheinfiltrationoftheNazisystemandthatloyaltytothisDutchexampleaswellastoAmericanconstitutionalprecedentswoulddemandasweepingrejectionofthewholeFuehrerprincipleofirresponsibleandunrestrainedleadership,eitherindomesticaffairsorinforeignrelations.

ThefactthatmanyofourTotalitarianLiberalsareAmerican-bornshowsthatthegenesisoftheirattitudescannotbeattributedinsuchinstancestoforeigninfluencesandtraditions.WorldWarsinevitablybreedtotalitariantendenciesanditishardtoshufflethemoffinpeacetime.AsProfessorGeorgeA.Lundbergcogentlypointsout,ourTotalitarianLiberalsapprovetotalitarianidealsandpracticeswhencarryingoutprojectsdeartotheirheartsbutare“horrified”whensuchidealsandpracticesarefollowedbyothercountries.They“surrounduswithamythicalandparanoidviewofourinternationalrelationswhichcanonlyleadtofurtherwar.”TheirethicallevityiswellrevealedbySherwood’sbookonRooseveltandHopkinsinwhichSherwoodexultantlyclaimscreditforthe“againandagainandagain”linesinRoosevelt’sBostonspeechof1940,thoughhewasobviouslyinapositiontoknowthatwewerealreadyirrevocablycommittedtowar,wereadmittedlylegallyinthewar,andweremakingarrangementsforthelandingofAmericantroopsonforeignshores.TheattitudeofcurrentintellectualAmericatowardsextremelightheartednessinsuchmatters,whichwereoncetakenwithsomeseriousness,iswellillustratedbythefactthatSherwoodwaselectedtomembershipintheaugustAmericanAcademyofArtsandLettersinDecember,1949.

IftheconstitutionalimpactofourentryintoWorldWarIImeansasurrenderoftheprinciplesofJeffersonandanadoptionofthoseofHitler,theoutcomewillhavebeendeplorableindeed.

ThisbringsustotheheartofthewholesignificanceofRevisionisminconnectionwiththesecondWorldWar.Itisnotmerelyanexerciseinintellectualintegrityandpublicsanitation;itinvolvestheexposureofpoliciesandmethodswhichthreatentounderminetheAmericanwayoflife,libertarianism,andthe

possibilityofbuildingplentyandsecurityonthebasisofourimpressivetechnologicalequipmentofthemid-twentiethcentury.Tothissubjectweshalldevotetheremainingsectionofthisbrochure.

VI.TheUnitedStatesEntersthe“1984”Pattern

Probablythemostdisastrouseffectofour“SecondCrusade”isthefactthattheUnitedStatesisslippingirrevocablyintothepatternofeconomiclifeandpoliticalstrategyportrayedbythelateGeorgeOrwellinhisominouslypropheticbook,NineteenEighty-Four.ThisbookwaslightlypassedoffbyAmericanjournalists,editorsandreviewersalike,asasatiricalcondemnationofSovietRussiatoday,orofwhatBritainmightbecomeunderaLaborGovernment.ButitsmainsignificanceresidesinthefactthatitisanalarminglyaccurateforecastanddescriptionofthesystemofsocietyandmentalattitudesintowhichallthemajorcountriesoftheworldseemtobedriftingasaresultoftheSecondWorldWaranditsaftermathinthecynicalbutuniversallypopularcoldwar.ForAmericans,itsimportanceliesinwarningustoavoidsuchacalamity,ifitisnotalreadytoolate.

Thesystemdescribedin“1984”restsuponthetechniquesuggestedbythewordswhichShakespeareputintothemouthofHenryIV,whoadvisedhissonto“busygiddymindswithforeignquarrels,”sothathissubjectsmightbedistractedfromerrorsandmistakesathome,bothpastandpresent.ThispatterninAmericanpoliticalandeconomicstrategywassetbyPresidentRooseveltwhenherehabilitatedhissinkingpoliticalfortunesafter1937byturningtoanaggressiveforeignpolicyandwartoassureathirdandfourthterm.Thestagesanddevicesbywhichthismomentoustransformationhasbeenmadeweretheabolitionofneutrality,armament,interventionism,war,theTrumandoctrine,thecoldwar,thebi-partisanforeignpolicy,andSecretaryAcheson’s“totaldiplomacy.”

Thebasicpatternof“1984”—allelseisincidental—istouseperpetualandphonywartodeprivethemassesoftheevergreaterbenefitsofouradvancingtechnology,lestthepeoplehavetheprosperity,security,leisure,andeducation

whichwouldenablethemtodosomeconstructivethinkinganddemandleadershipcompatiblewiththecomplexproblemsofourera.Allthecensorship,thought-policingandterror-mongeringareincidentalanddesignedsolelytoholdsocietyinflexiblyinthispatternoflifeandphilosophy.(SeeOrwell,op.cit.,pp.185ff.)

Itisobviousthatwehavealreadygonefaralongthisline,andalltrendssuggestthatweshallcontinuetopursueit.Thethreegreatwaringgroupsof“1984”—Oceania,Eurasia,andEastasia—havenowtakenshape.Ourprosperitysince1940hasbeenbaseduponawarandquasi-wareconomy.AsNormanThomaswellsaid:iftheLordshouldsendtheAngelGabrieltotheworldwiththeannouncementthattheDeityhadforbiddenallfurtherwars,wewouldatonceenterthegreatestdepressionofourhistory.HotandcoldwarshavekepttheDemocratsinpowersince1939andpromisetodosoindefinitelyevenifahotwarbreaksout.WithevenPresidentTrumanaskingforonly6percentofthefederalbudgetforwelfarepurposes—andgettingonlyhalfofthat—andrequestingover75percentforwars,past,present,andfuture,andgettingnearlyabillionmorethanheasksfor,wehavealreadytakengreatstridestowardsdeprivingthemassesofthebenefitsofmoreprofusemechanicalproduction.PointIVimposesonlyaplanetarylimitoncurrentandfuture“operationsrathole.”

Thehatecampaign,soterrifyinglyportrayedin“1984,”iswellunderway,asisalsothethoughtpolicingwhichBernardDeVotoassailedinHarper’sMagazine,October,1949.TwoSupremeCourtdecisions,in1947and1950,destroyedthecornerstoneofourbasiccivilliberties—thatwhichguaranteedourfreedomfromthesearchofourhomesandofficeswithoutasearchwarrant.ThiswasarightdemandedbytheEnglishpioneersofcivillibertyintheirbattlesagainsttheStuarttyrannyinthe17thcenturyandbyourcolonialforefathersintheirstrugglesforlibertyontheeveoftheAmericanRevolution.ItwassupposedtobefirmlysecuredbytheFourthAmendment.Itseliminationopensthedoortojustthetypeoftotalitariansnoopingandinvasionofprivacywhichprevailin“1984”society.Itischaracteristicofthenewor“totalitarianliberalism”thatthe1950decisionwashandeddownbysupposedlythemostradicalmemberoftheCourt.

Theprecedingpagesofthisbrochuremakeitplainhowdifficultitistoget

anymaterialbeforethepublicwhichmightcheckthetrendheretowardsthe“1984”patternoflife,eventhoughourignoranceisasyetcausedbywhatHaroldIckesoncecalled“voluntaryservitude.”Thismeansthat,inthisrespect,weareworseoffthanthosein“1984,”whereitwasnecessarytohireandintimidateservilebureaucratstofalsifyhistory.IntheUnitedStates,today,manyofourmosteminenthistoriansareeffectivelyperformingthisfunctionquitevoluntarilyandmostlywithoutexpensetothegovernment.WehavethusfarremainedcontenttoarrestandconvictCommunists,fortheSocialistsarenowimpotentandthereislittlepointinarrestingRepublicanssolongastheRepublicanpartyheartilysupportsthe“1984”trendsthatkeeptheDemocratsinpower.MenlikeArthurVandenbergandJohnFosterDullesareworthmorepoliticallytotheDemocratsthanthewholeDemocraticNationalCommittee.Ifweenteradepressionandthingstightenup,itmaybequiteadifferentstory.

Thegoverningbureaucracyof“1984,”aspicturedbyOrwell,ismadeupofjustthegroupswhoarenowcontrollingAmericanpublicpolicy:“Bureaucrats,scientists,technicians,trade-unionorganizers,publicityexperts,sociologists,teachers,journalistsandprofessionalpoliticians…whoseoriginslayinthesalariedmiddleclassandtheuppergradesoftheworkingclass…Ascomparedwiththeiroppositenumbersinpastages,theywerelessavaricious,lesstemptedbyluxury,hungrierforpurepowerand,aboveall,moreconsciousofwhattheyweredoingandmoreintentoncrushingopposition.”ItwillbeevidenttodiscerningreadersthatwhatOrwellisdescribinghereispreciselyourTotalitarianLiberalswhohavebeentakingoverpowersince1933andespeciallysince1939.ItisinterestingandsignificantthatinitsissueofFebruary19,1950,theNewYorkTimespublishedasurveyofourcurrent“governmenttypes,”whichfullyconfirmsthisdiagnosisofourpresent-day“publicservants.”

Wehavealreadyrichlydevelopedthe“Newspeak”and“Doublethink”semanticsof“1984.”Witnesssuchpopularandvirtuallyunassailedslogansas:

“War,wasteandinflationspellprosperity.Doublepricesandwedoublethenationalincome.Nationalprosperitymaybeassuredbygivingawaymoneyandgoods,tobepaidforbytheAmericantaxpayer.Ourgreatnationaldebtisablessingindisguisebecauseweoweittoourselves.Wearesettingupawelfarestatebyspending3percentofthebudgetforwelfare.Coldwarispeace.TheUnitedNations,splitrightdownthroughthemiddlebythecoldwar,isstillunitedandthehopeoftheworld.‘Peace-lovingnations’arethenationswhichmadewarbetween1939and1945.AidingthesocialistnationsofEuropeundertheMarshallPlanisaboldstroketopromotefreeenterpriseabroad.AidingtheconfirmedCommunist,Tito,promotestheAmericanwayoflifeabroad.Launchinganatombombrace

isthesurestwaytopeace.”

Onecouldcontinuethislistalmostindefinitely,buttheabovewillbesufficienttodrivehomethepointthatourpublicopinionisnowbeingoverwhelminglyshapedbythesemanticrusessofamiliartoreadersof“1984.”

Somewhoagreetoallthefactsjustsetforthwill,nevertheless,raisetheirhandsinhorrorandmaintainstoutlythatAmericanswillneverpermitsuchadevelopmenttotakeplace.Themostcogentanswertothisisthatithashappenedinbasicessentialsalready,withoutmorethanahandfulofAmericansrealizingit.Thedevelopmentsareallcamouflagedbehindablanketofpseudo-libertarian“Newspeak.”Ifthetrendmovesonasrapidlyandinexorablyfrom1950to1984asithasfrom1937to1950,weshallhaveachievedthe“1984”patterncompletely,withsuchvariationsindetailsascircumstancesandAmericancultureproduce.

Equallyrelevantisthequestionastowhowillarisetoexposethetrendsandmakeusretraceourstepsbeforeitistoolate?TheDemocratssurelywillnot,fortheyaretheimmediatebeneficiariesofthetrend.Vandenberg,Dulles,Dewey,etal.havemadeitimpossiblefortheRepublicanstodoso.Thebusinessclasseswillnot,becausetheyenjoythefalseprosperityengendered,withitslesseningofcompetition,andhaveconcentrateduponacampaignagainstafictitiousSantaClaus—attackingthebogus3percentwelfarestateasaleapintosocialism,andignoringthefactthatthecold,andultimatelyhot,wariswhatwillbringdrasticandrigoroussocialism.Laborwillnotoppose,becauseit,also,isenjoyingits“cut”inthetemporary“gravy”producedbythecoldwarandarmament.Theradicalsareimpotent,andmostoftheold-timepacifistsareeitherdeador,likeEdwardMeadeEarle,havegoneoverardentlyintotheinterventionistandcoldwarcamp.

AstowhowillbetheAmerican“BigBrother”isanybody’sguess,butthewriter’sopinionisthatthemostlikelycandidateisSenatorPaulH.Douglas.Heiswellcastfortherolephysicallyandindemeanor.Hehasambition.ThefactthatheadroitlytransformedhimselffromprobablythemostuncompromisingprofessorialpacifistintheUnitedStates,inthelate1920’sandearly1930’s,intosurelyoneofthemostvehementofouracademicwar-mongersshowsthathehasthementalandmoralflexibility,adaptability,andopportunismtoenablehimtooperateaWarDepartmentasthe“DepartmentofPeace,”andthethoughtpolice,

espionageandtorturechamberswithina“DepartmentofLove.”HislushcommentaryontheRooseveltwarperiodshowsthatheisadmirablypreparedsemanticallyfortheresponsibilitiesof“BigBrother,”andwillbeabletoadministerhis“DepartmentofTruth”soastointerpretthenewsystemasamovementinbehalfoflibertarianism,worldpeace,andsocialjustice.Butthewriterisnotinsistentonanypersonalchoiceforthepost.Othernominationsareinorderandfitcandidatescanbeproduced,nowthat“Doublethink”hasbecomethebasicstrategyofpoliticalrhetoric.

Somemaythinkthattheabovepictureisoverdrawn,butinrealityitisanunderstatement.In“1984,”therulershavethegoodsensetokeepthewarsperpetuallyphonyandwithlittlefightingordestruction.Themunitionswhichdeprivethemassesofprosperityareeitherallowedtorotandrust,oraresecretlysunkinmid-ocean.Wearealltoolikelytomoveintoahydrogen-bombhotwarinsteadofanadroit,ifcruel,harsh,andunnecessaryphonywar.Thiswillproduceconditionswhichwillmake“1984”seemlikeajointpicnicofanarchistsandpacifists,withRogerBaldwinasthehost.

Theominousprecisionwithwhichwearenowduplicatingtheroadtowarof1937to1941iswellillustratedbythefactthataCommitteetoDefendAmericabyAidinganti-CommunistChinahasjustbeenformed(shadesofWilliamWhiteandhisCommittee).ItismostappropriatelyheadedbytheTreasureroftheNationalCasketCompany.