McCarthy Booklet


McCarthy Book

A couple years ago I was reading a JFK book (I forget which one) which included a snippet of a conversation he had one time wherein he was wondering about America's role in China during WWII. I think he was starting to suspect that the USA was helping Mao instead of Chiang Kai-shek, which actually turned out to be true, as recently disclosed in a 2005 book, MAO: THE UNKNOWN STORY (which I bought, based on the review):

China Mao Book

MONSTER MAO UNKNOWN STORY (...Stalin the Ghost Behind Mao, review of bestselling biography Mao: The Unknown Story, Sunday Times, Jul 24, 2005 (...Though it was exhausted by the long war with Japan, Chiang’s regime pushed the Communists to the far north of the country, and was poised to finish them off. At that moment, a powerful American emissary, the future secretary of state George Marshall, forced Chiang to call a truce, which allowed the Red Army to escape. Stalin then came through as Moscow provided large quantities of supplies to the Chinese Communists. Using Russian arms and tactics, Communist forces swept south, crossed the Great Wall, took Beijing and defeated the Nationalists in an epic battle involving millions of men in east China. Despite the peasant legend, this was the victory of a modern army using American equipment captured from the Nationalists, as well as Soviet supplies — the first troops to enter Beijing rode in US trucks.... See

In reading about Senator Joe McCarthy over the years (he was a friend of JFK and Bobby) I learned that he had made speeches* to Congress, not only about Communist infiltration of the USA government, but also about how the USA government had helped the Communists come to power in China in 1949 and Korea in 1950. ~ Jackie Jura

Following are passages on the topic from biographies on McCarthy, firstly:

by Mrs Larry Lawrence, Secretary to Senator McCarthy
published in 1998

McCarthy Booklet

....Our surrender of China seemed just as pointless. Today we are seeing the results we saw at Beijing. Once when the Senator was reminiscing about some interesting experiences in the Pacific, he commented, "I came to know the Pacific and the coast of Asia as well as I did my dad's farm when I was a boy, and for the first time I began to fully appreciate the great wisdom of America's long term policy on Asia, the policy of maintaining a free, independent friendly China in order to keep the Pacific, actually the Pacific in fact as well as in name. And now I learn that our wise and long term policy was being 'scuttled." So when Senator McCarthy came to Washington, he realized the situation in the Far East....

Senator McCarthy explained fourteen mistakes our government had made in dealing with the Far East problem, mistakes which seriously injured our prestige and leadership. He offered suggestions of how they should have been and now could be handled. I think you will be very interested in all of them, but I will only take time to read two or three. 1) In December 1945, he explained, the American Government instructed the Chinese people that the only way to keep American friendship was to take Communists into their government. George C. Marshall, General Marshall, went to China for our Government and presented this ultimatum to them. 2) In January 1947, our Government made good on the ultimatum. Chiang Kieshek, the leader of the anti-Communist forces, had refused to take Communists into his Government, and Truman had cut off all their supplies; the Communists then took over China. When I saw the tragic slaughter at Beijing, I couldn't help but feel ashamed for my country. As Lattimore had suggested, we should let China fall, but don't let it look like we pushed them. But we did.

Then on November 3, 1950, Senator McCarthy explained, the American Armies were fighting in Korea when they were attacked by Chinese Communist troops. The American Government ordered the military commanders not to bomb Chinese bases or supply lines, even though American troops were in danger of destruction. The reason given: this might bring China into the war, and believe it or not, our country had turned down the Chinese anti-Communist forces offer of 33,000 troops to help defeat the Chinese and Korean Communists. Also, and I don't suppose you've read this in many history books, American forces were protecting the Communist-Chinese coasts. The American fleet was ordered to protect Red China against the anti-Communist Nationalist raid, and our seventh fleet was ordered to protect shipments of military supplies for the Red Chinese forces killing American boys.

Senator McCarthy continued to explain all fourteen errors he felt our government had made. At the last case, he told them, quoting from his report given as late as May, 1955:

"The Senate Subcommittee on Investigations reported on the questioning of top State Department/Defense Department officials that 481 American prisoners of war were still unacounted for and were believed to be in Chinese prisons. Last year, with great fanfare and by making who knows what concessions to the Reds, we obtained the release of fifteen, which leaves 466 American fighting men whom the mightiest Nation on earth is evidently not lifting a finger to protect. I say the world will never respect us, will never acknowledge us as a worthy leader in the anti-Communist cause until it learns that when an American soldier goes overseas, he packs on his shoulders the entire strength of the United States of America. The Nation owes the same duty to the soldier as the soldier owes to the Nation."

Senator McCarthy continued:

"Therefore I repeat what I have urged a hundred times before, that we put Red China in an economic straight jacket, that so long as an American boy remains in Communist control that no American money go to nations that trade with Red China in strategic supplies or otherwise. One of the results of the Geneva Friendship meeting is that we are permitting our alleged allies to ship highly strategic war supplies to the Soviet Union. This policy affects the Far East as well as other parts of the world since Communist China gets what she needs from Communist Russia."

This was a subject the Senator stressed in press releases. I can't remember that there were any more boys released after that.

I won't take time to go into all the mistakes Senator McCarthy explained, but I should mention the suppression of the Wedemeyer Report. General Wedemeyer was one of our top Intelligence officers who had prepared a special report to Congress on how China could be saved from Communist conquest. This special, important report has been withheld from the Congress. When the Armed Services Committee of the United States Senate learned of this, they asked General Marshall why he had joined in the suppression of that report. "I did not join in the suppression of that report; I personally suppressed it." Congress did not have that report to use in their making of a decision.

Senator McCarthy kept finding more and more references to General Marshall as he continued his research into the reasons China fell to the Communists. When he heard that the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House had been requested to approve the arming of, by America, ten Chinese Communist Divisions he could hardly believe it. And then he learned that Secretary of State Dean Acheson reported that General Marshall had agreed to assign sixty-nine United states officers and 400 tons of American equipment to train ten Communist Chinese armies. This was incredible, and when Senator McCarthy had completed his research, he gave a report of General Marshall's record to the Congress and printed his book "America's Retreat From Victory" a story of George Catlett Marshall. General Marshall had been built up as such a great General and hero by the press that most people had a hard time believing the truth, but his book was completely documented. I'll tell you how to get a copy if you really want to know the truth, and I hope you want to get one....
[end quoting from History of Great Patriot McCarthy by Mrs Larry Lawrence]

Now here are excerpts from another McCarthy biography where the author is giving an overview of USA's involvement in China:

by Thomas C. Reeves, published 1982

McCarthy Book

beginning on page 215:

...The United States had long had a somewhat romantic attachment to China. Missionaries had been active there for more than a century, and Americans continued to believe that the Open Door policy had been a diplomatic triumph that had saved the vast country from European exploitation. We had a sense of responsibility toward China, a feeling that we were somehow morally responsible for her fate. In 1951 George Kennan spoke of 'a certain sentimentality toward the Chinese,' which, he warned, was both patronizing and dangerously naive.

China had been engaged in a fierce civil war since the 1920s. The Chinese Communist party, founded in 1921 and led by Mao Tse-tung, had collaborated with Sun Yat-sen and the Kuomintang, or National People's Party, in the early 1920s. With Sun Yat-sen's death and the rise of anti-Communist Chiang Kai-shek, however, the veil of friendship vanished, and the Communists and Kuomintang were soon locked in deadly combat for control fo the country. By 1931 there were actually two Chinas. An alliance was worked out between them in 1937 in response to attacks by the Japanese, and during the Second World War Chiang was acknowledged to be the nation's leader. But throughout the years of fighting neither side lost sight of its ultimate aim, which was the destruction of the other. By Pearl Harbor the Communists were in control of an area of 150,000 square miles, containing over 50 million people At every opportunity during the war they sought to expand their authority.

Chiang had strong support in the United States. Henry R. Luce, for example, born in China to Presbyterian missionaries, intensely admired the Chinese leader, especially after Chinag's baptism as a Methodist in 1931. Luce's supreme goal in life was the Christianization of China, and in Chiang he believed he had found an unblemished savior. His influential Time magazine lavished praise upon Chiang and his attractive wife for years. (By 1944 Luce's holdings in the media were such that an opinion of his could reach at least a third, and perhaps considerably more, of the nation's literate adult population.) Luce was also the spearhead of United China Relief, which had a prestigious board that raised millions of dollars for Chiang during the war.

With the outbreak of World War II, President Roosevelt treated Chiang as the leader of a great power and saw to it that he received a half billion dollars from the United States. It was the President's hope that the Generalissimo (who had sought twice that amount) would bolster his military forces and engage as many Japanese as possible in combat while the Allies concentrated their initial wartime efforts in North America.

In January 1942, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson selected Gen. Joseph W. (Vinegar Joe) Stilwell to be Chiang's chief of staff and head of operations in the China-Burma-India theater. Stilwell, 58, was a hard-driving, outspoken West Point graduate who had served two tours of duty in China. Placed in command of two Chinese armies, he was soon given the task of preparing for the reconquest of Burma. Almost immediately Stilwell became a bitter critic of Chiang Kai-shek, charging that he sabotaged Stilwell's authority and was more interested in stopping the Chinese Communists than the Japanese. Before long he referred to the Generalissimo as the "Peanut" and described him to Theodore H. White as "an ignorant, illiterate, peasant son of a bitch." Stilwell also clashed with Maj. Gen. Claire Chennault, an arch-conservative who served as Chiang's chief aviation adviser and enjoyed direct access to President Roosevelt.

At Stilwell's request, the State Department assigned John Paton Davies, Jr., to his staff. Davies had been born in 1908 in China, where his parents served as Baptist missionaries. He was widely respected as an expert in Chinese affairs and had long been critical of Chiang and the Nationalist government. Along with other State Department "Old China Hands," John Stewart Service (also born in China to missionaires) and John Carter Vincent, with the American embassy in China in 1942, Davies had confidence in the Chinese Communists' willingness to fight the Japanese and saw them as a positive, popular contrast to what Service contemptuously referred to as the "Kuomintang dictatorship." These experienced well-trained, Chinese-speaking Foreign Service officers were not Communists or part of a conspiracy to turn China over to the Communists. (More than a dozen of the China Hands would later be charged with the "loss" of China.) They were, however, extremely displeased with the military foot-dragging, reactionary policies, and sordid corruption of Chiang's regime and, like many journalists on the scene, were impressed by the Communists' personal austerity and charm and by their espousal of liberal economic policies and orderly democratic growth. Most of the China Heads believed that the Communists were destined to rule China and hoped that the United States would encourage their independence from Russia and win their friendship. Several of them advocated direct American aid to the Communist armies in order to battle the Japanese more effectively and force reforms upon the Kuomintang, which would be compelled to compete for the favor of the Chinese people. Stilwell agreed, but the proposal was ultimately rejected.

At a time when Americans and Russians were allies, it was United States policy to promote collaboration between the two Chinese rivals. Roosevelt sent Vice-President Henry Wallace to confer with Chiang in June 1944 to persuade him to create a united front with the Communists against the Japanese. Wallace was accompanied by John Carter Vincent, then chief of the Division of Chinese Affairs in the State Department, and Owen Lattimore, an official of the Office of War Information and an authority on Asian affairs. Chiang rejected the Vice-President's naive suggestion, demanded impossible concessions from the Communists, and stated flatly that he lacked confidence in Stilwell. A few months later Stilwell, who had fought heroically alongside Chinese troops in North Burma, was relaced by Lt. Gen. Albert C. Wedemeyer. Wedemeyer was an admirer of the Generalissimo and was soon critical of Davies, Service, and several other Foreign Service professionals he inherited.

In August the President sent Maj. Gen. Patrick J. Hurley to China as his personal representative, instructing him to attempt to unify military forces in China. Hurley was a combative, fast-talking, ultraconservative, 61-year-old Oklahoma oil and gas attorney who lacked virtually any knowledge of China. He was convinced that the State Department was full of pre-Communists and pro-Zionists.

On his way to China, Hurley was persuaded by Foreign Minister Molotov in Moscow that the Chinese Communists were not genuine Communists. He later told a news conference:

     All the demands that the Communist party have been making
     have been on a democratic basis. That has led to the statement
     that the Communist party in China are not, in fact, real Communists.
     The Communist party of China is supporting exactly the same principles
     as those promulgated by the National Government of China and conceded
     to be objectives also of the National Government . . .

Hurley was able to obtain a draft agreement, signed by Mao Tse-tung, calling for a "coalition National Government." His buoyance was short-lived, however, for Chiang turned up his nose at the idea of sharing his absolute power with another absolutist, ever mindful of the total authority he wished to possess in postwar China.

When Hurley resigned in November 1945 he cast the full blame for the failure of his mission upon State Department officials and Foreign Service experts. In a better letter to President Truman, he wrote:

     The professional foreign service men sided with the Chinese
     Communist armed party and the imperialist bloc of nations
     whose policy it was to keep China divided against herself. Our
     professional diplomats continuously advised the Communists that
     my efforts in preventing the collapse of the National Government
     did not represent the policy of the United States. These same
     professionals openly adivsed the Communist armed party to decline
     unification of the Chinese Communist Army with the National Army
     unless the Chinese Communists were given control.

In an appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee he named Service, Davies, Vincent, and several other China Hands as the culprits. Earlier in the year he had had Service recalled to Washington after Service had drafted a policy statement, signed by every political officer in the American embassy in Chungking, that the general considered insubordinate.

The day after Hurley submitted his resignation, President Truman named General of the Army George C. Marshall as his personal representative in China and authorized him to offer China a loan of a half billion dollars if a coalition government could be formed to administer it. The wartime goal of unification was now extended to peacetime in the hope of creating political stability. The retired Chief of Staff struggled in vain for more than a year; neither the Kuomintang nor the Communist leaderhip was willing to abandon its desire to eliminate the other. The President recalled Marshall on January 6, 1947, appointing him Secretary of State within the month.

No futher missions were sent to China, and a feeling of helpless resignation prevailed in Washington. The United States continued to give economic and military aid to Chiang: from 1940 to war's end $645 million in loans and $825.7 million in Lend-Lease aid went to China; from V-J day to mid-1949 the National Government received more than two billion dollars in grants and credits plus great quantities of weapons. We would not, however, become more directly involved in a civil war.

Nationalist weapons often would up in Communist hands, being abandoned in the field or sold. In the last three months of 1948 about 60 percent of all American military supplies were captured intact by the Communists. Whole divisions of Chiang's troops deserted to the Red revolution sweeping the country. When Secretary of State Dean Acheson issued the White Paper in August 1949, he declared:

     The unfortunate but inescapable fact is that the ominous
     result of the civil war in China was beyond the control of
     the government of the United States. Nothing that this country
     did or could have done within the reasonable limits of its
     capabilities could have changed that result; nothing that was
     left undone by this country has contributed to it. It was the
     product of internal Chinese forces, forces which this country
     tried to influence but could not. A decision was arrived at
     within China, if only a decision by default.

At this same time increasing publicity was being given to what was called the "China Lobby," and Democratic Representative Mike Mansfield of Montana unsuccessfully requested a congressional investigation of it. The China Lobby was a loose association of Chiang Kai-shek supporters that spent large sums of money promoting the interests of Nationalist China. Its roots could be traced at least to 1940, and it became a prominent force in Washington, especially after the war when the internal power struggle in China intensified. In 1948 the lobby became closely associated with the G.O.P. [Grand Old Party aka Republican-jj], convinced that Chiang would be treated more generously by a Dewey administration. After Dewey's defeat and the advent of the second Red Scare, large numbers of Republicans embraced the China Lobby's view that the ascent of Communism in China was the responsibility of traitors employed by Roosevelt and Truman. The right wing of the G.O.P., especially Senators Styles Bridges of New Hampshire, William Knowland of California, Kenneth Wherry of Nebraska, and Congressman Walter Judd of Minnesota (a former medical missionary in China), was extremely vocal on Chiang's behalf, and Senators Vandenberg and Taft lent their considerable prestige to the outcry. Senator Pat McCarran, a maverick Democrat rumored to have close ties to the gambling interests in his home state of Nevada, was also in the thick of things. HUAC's hearings into alleged internal subversion provided pro-Chiang writers with excellent targets, and for years they would argue that Lauchlin Currie, Harry Dexter White, and Alger Hiss were part of the plot to give China to the Reds. The Old China Hands were condemned persistently as handmaidens of the Communists.

China Lobby authors included such ultraconservaties as Joseph P. Kamp, John T. Flynn, and Freda Utley; Henry Luce gave the support of his huge publishing empire and put Chiang on the cover of Time magazine for a record seventh time. There were also newspaper editors like the fiery New Hampshire extremist William Loeb, businessmen, religious leaders, military men, and others who backed Chiang and contributed to the flow of propaganda and influence-peddling on his behalf. Some of them were concerned citizens, some were fanatics, others were deeply cynical and looking for political economic advantages.

Critics often stressed the economic motivation, charging for example that China Lobby figures T.V. Soong and H.H. Kung, both relatives of Chiang, had grown extremely wealthy on American aid to China and were after more money. Gen. Claire Chennault, it was said, was set up in a lucrative airline business with American dollars. Some politicians, including Styles Bridges in 1948, received campaign donations from China Lobby sources. A New York public relations expert, on the payroll of the Bank of China, flew to California in 1950 to organize an 'independent citizens committee for Nixon.'

The central figure in the China Lobby was Alfred Kohlberg, a short, rotund, bald, New York textile manufacturer and importer in his early sixties. Kohlberg first visited China in 1916 and soon created a business that eventually brought him $1.5 million a year. He shipped linens from Ireland to southeastern China, had them embroidered by thousands of young people working for the barest of salaries, and sent the finished products to the United States. (In 1943 the Federal trade Commission ordered him to stop selling Chinese-made lace under fancy European names.) Kohlberg's profits depended upon Chiang's control of China, and this undoubtedly played a role in his militant defense of the Generalissimo. But there was surely more to the story, for Kohlberg was a tireless zealot, ever eager to persuade the world that the popular ruler of China had been stabbed in the back by the Communists and pro-Communists in the United States.

Self-educated about Communism and unable to speak Chinese, Kohlberg said that he first became aware of a conspiracy against Chiang among American embassy officials in 1943. In 1944 he began a three-year attack upon the Institute of Pacific Relations, to which he belonged, for following the Communist "party line" in China. A year later he encouraged Patrick Hurley to resign and was soon working to defeat the Senate confirmation of John Carter Vincent for the Foreign Service rank of career minister. As Chiang's fortunes continued to decline, Kohlberg sent thousands of letters to newspaper editors, government officials, and prominent citizens; he wrote articles, subsidized at least two right-wing magazines, and in 1946 was the driving force in the newly formed American China Policy Association, led at different times by Clare Boothe Luce and William Loeb. Kohlberg also served as president of the American Jewish League against Communism and as an adviser to the Committee for Constitutional Government. The latter organization had a mailing list of 350,000 names by 1950 and disbributed tons of pro-Nationalist propaganda written by Freda Utley and John T. Flynn, among others.

By early 1950 literature and rhetoric about spies, traitors, and betrayals were commonplace across the United States. When Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury on January 21 (his first trial had resulted in a hung jury), the political atmosphere crackled with even greater suspicioun and frustration. The conviction was a stunning vindication for Richard Nixon and HUAC and a severe jolt to all the "respectable" people who had testified on behalf of Hiss's integrity and patriotism. Congressman Mundt urged the President now to begin to weed out the government employees "whose soviet leanings have contributed so greatly to the deplorable mess of our foreign policy." Nixon called the Hiss case only "a small part of the whole shocking story of Communist espionage in the United States."
[end quoting from Life & Times of Joe McCarthy]

And here's a speech on the subject of USA helping Communists in China, North Korea and Russia, linked on the Fordham University, New York website:

Traitor George C Marshall Exposed by Senator Joe McCarthy
*speech delivered by Senator McCarthy before the US Senate
on June 14, 1951

How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this Government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy, a conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men.

Who constitutes the highest circles of this conspiracy? About that we cannot be sure. We are convinced that Dean Acheson, who steadfastly serves the interests of nations other than his own, the friend of Alger Hiss, who supported him in his hour of retribution, who contributed to his defense fund, must be high on the roster. The President? He is their captive. I have wondered, as have you, why he did not dispense with so great a liability as Acheson to his own and his party's interests. It is now clear to me. In the relationship of master and man, did you ever hear of man firing master? Truman is a satisfactory front. He is only dimly aware of what is going on.

I do not believe that Mr. Truman is a conscious party to the great conspiracy, although it is being conducted in his name. I believe that if Mr. Truman had the ability to associate good Americans around him, be would have behaved as a good American in this most dire of all our crises.

It is when we return to an examination of General Marshall's record since the spring of 1942 that we approach an explanation of the carefully planned retreat from victory. Let us again review the Marshall record, as I have disclosed it from all the sources available and all of them friendly. This grim and solitary man it was who, early in World War II, determined to put his impress upon our global strategy, political and military.

It was Marshall, who, amid the din for a "second front now" from every voice of Soviet inspiration, sought to compel the British to invade across the Channel in the fall of 1942 upon penalty of our quitting the war in Europe.

It was Marshall who, after North Africa had been secured, took the strategic direction of the war out of Roosevelt's hands and - who fought the British desire, shared by Mark Clark, to advance from Italy into the eastern plains of Europe ahead of the Russians.

It was a Marshall-sponsored memorandum, advising appeasement of Russia in Europe and the enticement of Russia into the far-eastern war, circulated at Quebec, which foreshadowed our whole course at Tehran, at Yalta, and until now in the Far East.

It was Marshall who, at Tehran, made common cause with Stalin on the strategy of the war in Europe and marched side by side with him thereafter.

It was Marshall who enjoined his chief of military mission in Moscow under no circumstances to "irritate" the Russians by asking them questions about their forces, their weapons, and their plans, while at the same time opening our schools, factories, and gradually our secrets to them in this count.

It was Marshall who, as Hanson Baldwin asserts, himself referring only to the "military authorities," prevented us having a corridor to Berlin. So it was with the capture and occupation of Berlin and Prague ahead of the Russians.

It was Marshall who sent Dean [Acheson] to Moscow to collaborate with Harriman in drafting the terms of the wholly unnecessary bribe paid to Stalin at Yalta. It was Marshall, with Hiss at his elbow and doing the physical drafting of agreements at Yalta, who ignored the contrary advice of his senior, Admiral Leahy, and of MacArtbur and Nimitz in regard to the folly of a major land invasion of Japan; who submitted intelligence reports which suppressed more truthful estimates in order to support his argument, and who finally induced Roosevelt to bring Russia into the Japanese war with a bribe that reinstated Russia in its pre-1904 imperialistic position in Manchuria - an act which, in effect, signed the death warrant of the Republic of China.

It was Marshall, with Acheson and Vincent eagerly assisting, who created the China policy which, destroying China, robbed us of a great and friendly ally, a buffer against the Soviet imperialism with which we are now at war.

It was Marshall who, after long conferences with Acheson and Vincent, went to China to execute the criminal folly of the disastrous Marshall mission.

It was Marshall who, upon returning from a diplomatic defeat for the United States at Moscow, besought the reinstatement of forty millions in lend-lease for Russia.

It was Marshall who, for 2 years suppressed General Wedemeyer's report, which is a direct and comprehensive repudiation of the Marshall policy.

It was Marshall who, disregarding Wedemeyer's advices on the urgent need for military supplies, the likelihood of China's defeat without ammunition and equipment, and our "moral obligation" to furnish them, proposed instead a relief bill bare of military support.

It was the State Department under Marshall, with the wholehearted support of Michael Lee and Remington in the Commerce Department, that sabotaged the $125,000,000 military-aid bill to China in 1946.

It was Marshall who fixed the dividing line for Korea along the thirty-eighth parallel, a line historically chosen by Russia to mark its sphere of interest in Korea.

It is Marshall's strategy for Korea which has turned that war into a pointless slaughter, reversing the dictum of Von Clausewitz and every military theorist since him that the object of a war is not merely to kill but to impose your will on the enemy.

It is Marshall-Acheson strategy for Europe to build the defense of Europe solely around the Atlantic Pact nations, excluding the two great wells of anti-Communist manpower in Western Germany and Spain and spurning the organized armies of Greece and Turkey - another case of following the Lattimore advice of "let them fall but don't let it appear that we pushed them."

It is Marshall who, advocating timidity as a policy so as not to annoy the forces of Soviet imperialism in Asia, had admittedly put a brake on the preparations to fight, rationalizing his reluctance on the ground that the people are fickle and if war does not come, will hold him to account for excessive zeal.

What can be made of this unbroken series of decisions and acts contributing to the strategy of defeat? They cannot be attributed to incompetence. If Marshall were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that part of his decisions would serve this country's interest. If Marshall is innocent of guilty intention, how could he be trusted to guide the defense of this country further? We have declined so precipitously in relation to the Soviet Union in the last 6 years. How much swifter may be our fall into disaster with Marshall at the helm? Where will all this stop? That is not a rhetorical question: Ours is not a rhetorical danger. Where next will Marshall carry us? It is useless to suppose that his nominal superior will ask him to resign. He cannot even dispense with Acheson.

What is the objective of the great conspiracy? I think it is clear from what has occurred and is now occurring: to diminish the United States in world affairs, to weaken us militarily, to confuse our spirit with talk of surrender in the Far East and to impair our will to resist evil. To what end? To the end that we shall be contained, frustrated and finally: fall victim to Soviet intrigue from within and Russian military might from without. Is that farfetched? There have been many examples in history of rich and powerful states which have been corrupted from within, enfeebled and deceived until they were unable to resist aggression. . . .

It is the great crime of the Truman administration that it has refused to undertake the job of ferreting the enemy from its ranks. I once puzzled over that refusal. The President, I said, is a loyal American; why does he not lead in this enterprise? I think that I know why he does not. The President is not master in his own house. Those who are master there not only have a desire to protect the sappers and miners - they could not do otherwise. They themselves are not free. They belong to a larger conspiracy, the world-wide web of which has been spun from Moscow. It was Moscow, for example, which decreed that the United States should execute its loyal friend, the Republic of China. The executioners were that well-identified group headed by Acheson and George Catlett Marshall.

How, if they would, can they break these ties, how return to simple allegiance to their native land? Can men sullied by their long and dreadful record afford us leadership in the world struggle with the enemy? How can a man whose every important act for years had contributed to the prosperity of the enemy reverse himself? The reasons for his past actions are immaterial. Regardless of why he has done what be did, be has done it and the momentum of that course bears him onward. . . .

The time has come to halt this tepid, milk-and-water acquiescence which a discredited administration, ruled by disloyalty, sends down to us. The American may belong to an old culture, he may be beset by enemies here and abroad, he may be distracted by the many words of counsel that assail him by day and night, but he is nobody's fool. The time has come for us to realize that the people who sent us here expect more than time-serving from us. The American who has never known defeat in war, does not expect to be again sold down the river in Asia. He does not want that kind of betrayal. He has had betrayal enough. He has never failed to fight for his liberties since George Washington rode to Boston in 1775 to put himself at the head of a band of rebels unversed in war. He is fighting tonight, fighting gloriously in a war on a distant American frontier made inglorious by the men he can no longer trust at the head of our affairs.

The America that I know, and that other Senators know, this vast and teeming and beautiful land, this hopeful society where the poor share the table of the rich as never before in history, where men of all colors, of all faiths, are brothers as never before in history, where great deeds have been done and great deeds are yet to do, that America deserves to be led not to humiliation or defeat, but to victory.

The Congress of the United States is the people's last hope, a free and open forum of the people's representatives. We felt the pulse of the people's response to the return of MacArthur. We know what it meant. The people, no longer trusting their executive, turn to us, asking that we reassert the constitutional prerogative of the Congress to declare the policy for the United States.

The time has come to reassert that prerogative, to oversee the conduct of this war, to declare that this body must have the final word on the disposition of Formosa and Korea. They fell from the grasp of the Japanese empire through our military endeavors, pursuant to a declaration of war made by the Congress of the United States on December 8, 1941. If the Senate speaks, as is its right, the disposal of Korea and Formosa can be made only by a treaty which must be ratified by this body. Should the administration dare to defy such a declaration, the Congress has abundant recourses which I need not spell out.

USA, China at odds over Taiwan Arms Deal. VOA, Jan 15, 2010
China is warning the United States that the recently announced sale of air defense missiles to Taiwan could damage trust between Washington and Beijing, and that further protests might follow. China has called on the United States to end all arms sales to the island, but the missile deal is one of several advanced weapons systems that are likely to be approved by the U.S. Congress in the coming months. The planned U.S. sale of Patriot air defense missiles to Taiwan is part of a larger package of high-end military hardware that originally was approved by former U.S. president George W. Bush.... Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States formally recognizes only the Beijing government. The act also obligates Washington to sell weapons to Taiwan to help it meet its defensive needs and to come to the aid of Taiwan, if it is attacked. China and Taiwan split in 1949 amid a civil war, and Beijing regards the self-ruled island to be part of its territory. China has at times threatened to use force to bring the island under its control, and it has an estimated 1,300 ballistic missiles positioned opposite the island along its eastern coast.... Even so, U.S. officials note...that the rise of a strong and prosperous [Communist] China can be a source of strength for the community of nations and they hope that differences can be resolved through dialogue....)

China threatens USA on weapons to Taiwan (will retaliate militarily if deal consummated). CNN, Jan 8, 2010. Go to CHICOM HATES FREE TAIWAN

Reader Carl is keen to learn more findings of patriot McCarthy's committee investigating communist penetration of the USA government



















Jackie Jura
~ an independent researcher monitoring local, national and international events ~