-Rise and Fall-
Part 2: America at a Crossroads
The Subversion of the Republic
The Heroic Presidency of FDR
FDR's Post-War Vision
The End of Imperialism?
The Third World War
The Subversion of the Republic
"Free Trade" was preached by Britain once her position as a manufacturing and industrial leader appeared secure. She used "Free Trade" to destroy whatever competition existed in her colonies of Ireland, India, Egypt and elsewhere, reducing them to poor dependencies that only exported cheap raw materials. The young United States could very well have suffered the same fate were it not for the far-sightedness of her founding fathers and for the economic system that they created. Elements of the American System of national economy were then adopted by Germany, Japan and Russia, which helped these countries grow strong and resist the very Empire that America had been born in revolt of. In fact, these were America's greatest allies of the nineteenth century until the pro-British Wall Street faction under the Houses of Morgan and Rockefeller was able to influence American foreign policy. Then the flip-flop occurred, which led directly to World Wars I and II, and the Cold War.
Historians refer to the American switch from being an enemy of the British Empire, to being a supporter and imitator of it, as the "Great Rapprochement." It was anything but "great." It was a betrayal of the most fundamental American values. The British Empire was the world's nine-hundred pound gorilla. At its height the Empire controlled over a quarter of the world's land area, its navy dominated all the oceans, and its government controlled a population of just over half a billion subjects, which was about a fifth of the world's population. Within this huge Empire only a tiny white minority could claim to be able to exercise their God-given rights to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." The rest were enslaved economically and often subdued violently through the barrel of a gun. The English novelist George Orwell was born in Burma and spent his young life there. In his semi-autobiographical novel Burmese Days Orwell explains British colonialism through one of his characters,
My dear doctor... how can you make out that we are in this country for any purpose except to steal? It's so simple. The official holds the Burman down while the businessman goes through his pockets. Do you suppose my firm, for instance, could get its timber contracts if the country weren't in the hands of the British? Or the other timber firms, or the oil companies, or the miners and planters and traders?
...We've even crushed various industries. Where are the Indian muslims now? Back in the 'forties [1840's] or thereabouts they were building sea-going ships in India, and manning them well. Now you couldn't build a seaworthy fishing boat there. In the eighteenth century the Indians cast guns that were at any rate up to the European standard. Now after we've been in India a hundred and fifty years, you can't make so much as a brass cartridge case in the whole continent. The only Eastern races that have developed at all quickly are the independent ones.
Profit was the great lure of Empire, and the Elite families of America's northeast knew that they could easily take their share of the booty if only they could convince the American government to follow Britain's example. In fact, Christopher Hitchens, in his insightful book, Blood, Class, and Nostalgia - Anglo-American Ironies, notes that the terms "East Coast," "Establishment," and "Anglophile" have often been interchangeable. The truth is that the "East Coast Establishment" has always been just an American branch of the British Empire.
A significant achievement for this faction was the installment of Theodore Roosevelt as President of the United States after the assassination of President William McKinley. Roosevelt idolized the British Empire and saw that his own nation had the potential to do the same. Under Roosevelt relations between the two former enemies became solid, and American foreign policy strategists began to learn the British way of doing things. However, Roosevelt's expansionist dreams were met with a great deal of contempt from most Americans, including politician William Jennings Bryan, who gave his views in his book A Republic, Not An Empire, and Mark Twain, a long-time head of the popular and influential Anti-Imperialist League, who wrote passionately against America's colonial policy in the Philippines.
After Theodore Roosevelt the next openly pro-British President was Woodrow Wilson. Descended from a Confederate family, and a great supporter of the Ku Klux Klan, Wilson's policy decisions, such as slashing the tariff, allowing the creation of the Federal Reserve, and entering the United States into World War I, were very helpful to the British Empire. However, even though Wilson was a devoted anglophile, and surrounded by like-minded Eastern Establishment advisors and policy makers, he still understood the American ideal of self-determination for all, and he articulated it well in his speeches and writings. Unfortunately his actions, or inaction, outweighed his words, and he watched the British Empire make its greatest one-time expansion in the aftermath of World War I.
The creation of the Federal Reserve in particular was a great achievement for the British Empire and for their economic control of the world. A year later in 1914 the long-planned war against Germany was brought to fruition in Europe, and American financing, even prior to American entry into the war in 1917, was the key to the British victory.
After the war the Federal Reserve, dominated as it was by Morgan and Rockefeller interests, acted in partnership with Wall Street and the City of London as a British economic weapon against the general welfare of the American people and the global economy as a whole. Historian Webster Tarpley explains this complicated situation in his important essay "BRITISH FINANCIAL WARFARE: 1929; 1931- 33 - HOW THE CITY OF LONDON CREATED THE GREAT DEPRESSION".
Tarpley reveals how two key people were responsible for carrying out the policies that led to the Great Depression. The first was Sir Montagu Norman, the governor of the Bank of England from 1920-1944. The second was Benjamin Strong, the Governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank from 1914 to 1929.
Note: (Tarpley writes that Norman "...owned a large piece of Hjalmar Schacht, Governor of the German Reichsbank and later Finance Minister in governments in which Adolf Hitler was chancellor. Montagu Norman himself, along with King Edward VIII, Lady Astor and Sir Neville Chamberlain, was one of the strongest supporters of Hitler in the British aristocracy. Norman put his personal prestige on the line in September, 1933 to support the Hitler regime in its first attempt to float a loan in London. The Bank of England's consent was at that time indispensable for floating a foreign bond issue, and Norman made sure that the "Hitler bonds" were warmly recommended in the City."
Norman's grandfather had been a very successful banker and a partner in the New York bank of Brown Brothers & Co. By the early 1930's the bank was known as Brown Brothers, Harriman, and was run by W. Averell Harriman and Prescott Bush, the grandfather of George W. Bush. Their firm was an important financial backer of Hitler - See Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Antony Sutton, Ch.4, p.74. In 1942 another Bush-Harriman enterprise, the Union Banking Corporation, was seized by the Federal Government for its support for Nazi Germany under the Trading With the Enemy Act. - See George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography by Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, chapter 2. The bottom line is that the rise of Hitler was only accomplished through the support of this elitist Anglo-American Establishment, the treasonous cabal that we will continue to analyze.)
Sir Montagu Norman and Benjamin Strong operated in tandem, with frequent meetings and constant contact, to create the financial bubble of the 1920's that Norman saw as necessary to insure the primacy of the gold-based British pound. Here is how Tarpley explains it,
Montagu Norman's golden pound would have been unthinkable without the puppet role of Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Since the pound was grotesquely overvalued, the British were running a balance of payments deficit because of their excess of imports over exports. That meant that Norman had to ship gold from the Bank of England in Threadneedle Street across the Atlantic. The British gold started to flow towards New York, where most of the world's gold already was.
The only way to stop the flow of gold from London to New York, Norman reasoned, was to get the United States to launch a policy of easy money, low interest rates, reflation, and a weak dollar - in short, a policy of inflation. The key to obtaining this was Benjamin Strong, who dominated the New York Fed, and was in a position to dominate the entire Federal Reserve system which was, of course, independent of the "political control" of the US government which these oligarchs so much resented.
In essence, Norman's demand was that the US should launch a bubble economy. The newly-generated credit could be used for American loans to Germany or Latin America. Or, it could be used to leverage speculative purchases of stocks. Very soon most of the new credit was flowing into broker call loans for margin buying of stocks. This meant that by advancing a small percentage of the stock price, speculators could borrow money to buy stocks, leaving the stocks with the broker as collateral for the loans. There are many parallels between the measures urged for the US by Norman in 1925 and the policies urged on Japan by London and Wall Street in 1986, leading to the Japanese bubble and their current banking crisis.
In 1925, as the pound was returning to gold, Montagu Norman, Hjalmar Schacht and Charles Rist, the deputy governor of the Banque de France visited Benjamin Strong in New York to mobilize his network of influential insiders for easy money and low interest rates in the US. Strong was able to obtain the policies requested by Norman and his European puppets. Norman & Co. made a second pilgrimage to Wall Street between 28 June and 1 July 1927 to promote American speculation and inflation. On this second lobbying trip, Norman exhibited grave concern because the first half of 1927 had witnessed a large movement of gold into New York. Strong and his cabal immediately went into action.
The second coming of Norman and Schacht in 1927 motivated Strong to force through new reflation of the money supply in July and a further cut in the US discount rate in August of that same year.
This artificially induced inflationary bubble made an American economic collapse inevitable. Norman knew it, Strong knew it, and his colleague Andrew Mellon, the Secretary of the Treasury from 1921-1929, knew it as well. In fact, Mellon seemed to welcome an American financial crisis, saying,
It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.
After the 1929 crash living standards did go down, and people were forced to work harder. But was it a positive thing for the nation? And who were the "enterprising people" who picked up the pieces of the economy at bargain basement prices after it shattered? Author G. Edward Griffin reveals the answer in his informative book on the Federal Reserve, The Creature From Jekyll Island,
John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Joseph P. Kennedy, Bernard Baruch, Henry Morganthau, Douglas Dillon - the biographies of all the Wall Street giants at that time boast that these men were "wise" enough to get out of the stock market just before the Crash. And it is true. Virtually all of the inner club was rescued. There is no record of any member of the interlocking directorate between the Federal Reserve, the major New York banks, and their prime customers having been caught by surprise.
Because of the Crash the Great Depression began with control of the American economy entrenched even further in private hands that were interested only in profit. The elite families of Wall Street's Eastern Establishment were the big winners of the Crash of 1929 and they continued to use their control to make themselves even richer at the expense of the majority. Laissez faire! was their slogan and they resented any type of government intrusion into their affairs. Tarpley writes of the situation at the very beginning of the Great Depression, and on the cowardice of President Hoover, who...
...for the sake of absurd free-market, laissez-faire ideology, allowed his country to drift into the abyss. As we will see, Hoover had everything he needed to base his 1932 campaign for re-election on blaming the Federal Reserve, especially its New York branch, for the 1929 calamity. Hoover could have assailed the British for their September 1931 stab in the back. Hoover would have been doing the country a permanent service, and he might have done somewhat better in the electoral college. But Hoover was not capable of seriously attacking the New York Fed and its master, Lord Montagu Norman.
The Heroic Presidency of FDR
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was sworn in as the 32nd President of the United States in 1933. FDR's background, as his critics are so quick to point out, was that of an Establishment insider. His distant cousin was Theodore Roosevelt, his uncle had been a founding member of the Federal Reserve Board, and his family had been involved in banking for two hundred years. He attended Groton Academy and Harvard, he served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy under President Wilson, and then during the 1920's he held eleven corporate directorships. In 1928 he was elected governor of New York state, and then in 1930 he was elected again by the greatest margin in the history of the state. The people loved him, and not without reason.
FDR could be superficially painted as the quintessential Establishment Man, but as such he understood how the Establishment worked and the power that he would have to confront if he were to ever rescue the nation. He once remarked, "Sixty families in America control the wealth of this nation," and his policies that targeted Big Business were fought almost every step of the way by many of these same families.
From the very beginning of his presidency FDR faced off against Wall Street, London, and especially the House of Morgan. His enemies knew FDR's goals because of his time as governor of New York state. His term was noted for his measures to create old-age pensions, unemployment insurance, labor regulations, and for his support for developing public electricity. They were policies aimed at improving the General Welfare, but they were resisted by Big Business and the private interests that may have offered the same things, but only for profit.
Central to FDR's legacy was his clear understanding of the ongoing battle of entrenched, hereditary, monopolistic private power versus the citizens of the United States as represented by their elected leaders and the three branches of government. This is something that many conservatives simply do not grasp. Eliminating the role of government as a regulator simply allows the situation where the Elite minority gets richer and more powerful and the rest of society, middle class as well as poor, becomes more and more exploited and steadily poorer.
FDR understood the government's Constitutional duty to maintain and promote the General Welfare, and of the government's Constitutional responsibility to control and manage the economy, which is given to Congress in its power "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures." (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5). FDR's chief goal was to take the economy back for the people, away from the private interests that controlled it so thoroughly after the Crash, and at the people's expense. The four part series entitled "FDR vs. the Banks: Morgan's Fascist Plot, and How It Was Defeated", from the American Almanac, reveals how the Anglo-American Establishment fought FDR from the very beginning. It is required reading for those who have become convinced that FDR was a friend of the Establishment, or a servant or puppet carrying out their goals. Here is a partial list of how FDR served the people, and went against the wishes and demands of his own Establishment:
-FDR helped to create the Works Progress Administration, and he passed the Wagner Act, which greatly aided the labor movement at the expense of Big Business.
-He also worked to pass Social Security, an institution that continues to help millions of low-income retired or disabled people get by month to month.
-FDR was also the most important backer of the first Federal minimum wage law.
-He created the Federal National Mortgage Administration (Fannie Mae), through which millions of Americans were able to finally afford to buy their own house. This institution worked to keep housing affordable for thirty years, until it was privatized and taken over by the big banks and helped create the massive real estate bubble we see today. (See Fannie and Freddie Were Lenders).
-FDR also created the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that kept an eye on corporations, Wall Street and the stock market on behalf of private investors.
-He backed the Glass-Steagall Act that restricted the big banks and kept banking separate from insurance and other forms of investment banking, which in turn led to the creation of the FDIC that protects small banks from runs and panics.
-FDR also created the Tennessee Valley Authority as a public institution providing cheap electricity to a large area in the South. Before the TVA the Establishment had looked upon electricity as another long-term cash cow, but FDR spoiled their plans and brought it to the American people for close to nothing.
These were but a few of the achievements of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a man so loved by the American people that he was elected to the Presidency for four consecutive terms. After FDR's death Congress was pressured to pass an amendment to the Constitution limiting the President to two terms, which is the most any other American President has served, or ever will serve.
FDR did not just fight the Establishment in his domestic and economic policies. He also fought the Establishment through his foreign policies. The Anglo-American Establishment is dedicated to the concept of Empire, and to its basic principles, which are domination and profit. The United States of America was initially created through a successful revolt against Empire, and FDR actively continued this fight in the twentieth century. He did so by subduing the elements that sought to make his own nation into an Empire, and by enacting policies that helped to ensure the disintegration of the British Empire after World War II. A few of the sources that demonstrate this fact are, Imperialism At Bay - The United States and the Decolonization of the British Empire, 1941-1945, by William Roger Louis, (1978), the articles "The Other War: FDR's Battle Against Churchill and the British Empire" and "Roosevelt's 'Grand Strategy' To Rid the World of British Colonialism: 1941-1945," from the American Almanac, and the first-hand account of FDR's diplomatic summits during World War II described by FDR's son Elliott in his book As He Saw It, (1946).
When World War II began it quickly became apparent that Great Britain was in serious trouble. Prime Minister Winston Churchill saw that his tiny island nation was virtually cut off from its colonies, Germany was poised to invade, and the government had run out of money. Roosevelt knew that the entire British Empire depended upon the United States of America to save it. From the beginning of the war it became clear that FDR intended to save Britain, but this was because he knew that the evil of Nazi Germany had to be destroyed. FDR would lead the United States into the war, but Britain would have to face several conditions before receiving American support. After the war began FDR commented to one of his advisors, "We will have more trouble with Great Britain after the war than we are having with Germany now."
FDR first articulated his vision of a world without colonialism to the American public in his State of the Union address of January 6, 1941. He began his speech by addressing the fact that Britain was dependant upon the US for its very survival, and then he went on to describe his vision of the post-war world:
"In future days, which we seek to secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is the freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world [emphasis FDR's].
The second is the freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world.
The third is the freedom from want--which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants--everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world.
That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our time and generation...
...This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or to keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.
To that high concept there can be no end save victory."
In early 1941 FDR asked Churchill to meet with him to work out their strategy of cooperation and come to agreements regarding further American assistance. The meeting finally took place on August 13-14 at a naval rendezvous in Argentia, Newfoundland. At the meeting FDR made it clear to Churchill that American support was conditional upon Britain signing on to a document that he and his advisors had drafted, known as the Atlantic Charter. In the discussions prior to the signing the following exchange took place, as recorded by Elliott Roosevelt in As He Saw It. It was sparked by FDR's comments on Britain's trade policies, and his stated view that they would have to be revised before any lasting peace was achieved...
Churchill shifted in his armchair. "The British Empire trade agreements," he began heavily, "are -
Father [FDR] broke in. "Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It is because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are."
Churchill's neck reddened and he crouched forward. "Mr. President, England does not propose for a moment to lose its favored position among the British Dominions. The trade that has made England great shall continue, and under these conditions prescribed by England's ministers."
"You see," said Father slowly, "it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be disagreement between you, Winston, and me. I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace, it must involve the development of backward countries. Backward peoples. How can this be done? It can't be done obviously by eighteenth-century methods. Now--"
"Who's talking about eighteenth-century methods?"
"Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century methods include increasing the standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation--by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community."
Around the room, all of us were leaning forward attentively. Hopkins was grinning. Commander Thompson, Churchill's aide, was looking glum and alarmed. The P.M. himself was beginning to look apoplectic.
"You mentioned India," he [WC] growled.
"Yes, I can't believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy."
"What about the Philippines?"
"I am glad you mentioned them. They get their independence, you know, in 1946. And they've gotten modern sanitation, modern education, their rate of illiteracy has gone steadily down..."
"There can be no tampering with the Empire's economic agreements."
"They are the foundation of our greatness."
"The peace," said Father firmly, "cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples..."
Churchill finally signed the Atlantic Charter (text here), as FDR knew he must. In the third clause Churchill's delegation objected to the use of the word "all" as it might be used to refer to British colonial possessions,
...they respect the right of ALL peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.
The word remained in the text despite British objections, and when the Atlantic Charter was released to the media oppressed colonial peoples around the world cheered! They believed that with American support, led by FDR, their freedom would soon come. Throughout the war FDR spoke many times regarding his view of colonialism (from "Roosevelt's 'Grand Strategy"),
-- "The colonial system means war. Exploit the resources of an India, a Burma, a Java; take all the wealth out of these countries, but never put anything back into them, things like education, decent standards of living, minimum health requirements--all you're doing is storing up the kind of trouble that leads to war. All you're doing is negating the value of any kind of organizational structure for peace before it begins."
-- "I'm talking about another war. I'm talking about what will happen to our world, if after this war we allow millions of people to slide back into the same semi-slavery! Don't think for a moment, Elliott, that Americans would be dying in the Pacific tonight, if it hadn't been for the shortsighted greed of the French and the British and the Dutch. Shall we allow them to do it all, all over again? Your son will be about the right age, fifteen or twenty years from now." [A prediction fulfilled in Vietnam].
-- "Why does Morocco, inhabited by Moroccans, belong to France? Or take Indochina.... The native Indo-Chinese have been so flagrantly downtrodden that they thought to themselves: Anything must be better, than to live under French colonial rule. Should a land belong to France? By what logic and what custom and by what historical rule?"
-- "India should be made a commonwealth at once. After a certain number of years ... she should chose whether she wants to remain in the Empire.... As a commonwealth, she should be entitled to a modern form of government, an adequate health and educational standard. But how can she have these things, when Britain is taking all the wealth of her national resources away from her every year? Ever year the Indian people have one thing to look forward to, like death and taxes. Sure as shooting, they have a famine. The season of the famine, they call it."
-- "I've tried to make it clear to Winston--and the others--that while we're their allies, and in it to victory by their side, they must never get the idea that we're in it just to help them hang on to the archaic, medieval Empire ideas. Great Britain signed the Atlantic Charter. I hope they realize that the United States government means to make them live up to it."
FDR's anti-Imperialist views are the very key to understanding his Presidency. This is the problem that Establishment historians face. Their job is to minimize the evils of Empire, and so they minimize this aspect of FDR's character. Instead they describe his foreign policy as "confusing," "mystifying" or "complicated." The truth is that FDR is not a hard figure to understand. It's just that his principles are impossible for the Establishment to accept.
Another characterization of FDR is that he was a loner, that he was "cunning" and "devious" (prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor?), that he often kept his true views to himself, and that he rarely placed complete trust in his advisors. This is explained by his understanding of the Establishment from which he came. He knew that he was surrounded by wolves who objected to the path he was charting for his nation. He once commented on this, bitterly, to his son Elliott,
"You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats over there aren't in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston [Churchill]. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are. Stop to think of 'em: any number of 'em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that! It isn't a question of whether they're Democrats or Republicans... It's like the British Foreign Office... That's our State Department."
By FDR's time the State Department had become just another office for the Eastern Establishment. He suppressed its subversive pro-British influence over the American government during his life, and promoted the traditional role of America as the hope of the world, as the defender of freedom and liberty and of all people's right to self-determination. Unfortunately America's role changed dramatically after World War II, from being a liberator, to being a dominator and oppressor, in perhaps the greatest and most damaging betrayal of American values and human hopes that the world has ever seen.
In a later section we will explore how the book of Revelation makes it clear that God has not let this betrayal go unnoticed.
FDR's Post-War Ideal
After World War II the world stood at a crossroads, faced by the twin menaces of a stubborn and lingering Imperialism and the emerging shadow of Communism. FDR's energy had been devoted to directing America and the world on a course that would avoid both of these evils. Only the United States had the global power to lead the world, and the foundational principles to guide it, against the two totalitarian systems.
Imperialism is a system of domination and plunder. It rejects the idea that every person is born equal and with God-given rights, and is instead infused with racism and the philosophy that "might makes right." Imperialism is a brutal system of power, profit, and luxury for the few, and impoverishment, oppression and humiliation for the many. It is clearly contrary to the American ideal and, indeed, America itself was created by a victory against it.
Communism is basically an over-reaction to Imperialism. While Imperialism is a system of domination of one group or class over another, Communism is theoretically a system where all groups and classes are equal. In practice, however, the bureaucrats and theoreticians in charge of enforcing equality and distributing the wealth always emerge as the favored ruling class, and pure Communism has never been realized. Additionally, Communism has almost always promoted a materialistic and atheistic philosophy that forbids freedom of religion and promotes Communism as a religion itself. Communism has also been a traditional enemy of free enterprise, of the free press, and of freedom of assembly. As a system that focuses on the Material aspects of life Communism ends up suppressing the Political and Spiritual freedoms that man needs to become complete. However, Communism, with its material focus, does offer Material freedom by mandating the equal distribution of basic necessities such as food, clothing and shelter. But as Jesus Christ said in rebuke of Satan, "Man does not live on bread alone." For these reasons Communism as a philosophy and as a system of government is clearly contrary to the American ideal, and clearly contrary to Christian morality that is the foundation of that ideal.
Imperialism is hardly any better. It suppresses Political freedom and it suppresses Material freedom. It suppresses Political freedom by not allowing its subjects the right to self-determination or representation, while it suppresses Material freedom by creating a climate where the poorest majority is often denied access to even the bare minimum of food, clothing and shelter. The British Empire cared little for the material well-being of its subjects, and is solely responsible for forcefully pushing opium on China, for the horrific Irish Holocaust, and for the annual Indian famines that took place under Imperial rule. Regarding Spiritual freedom, historically the British Empire has always paid lip service to it, but this has often been in the form of infiltrating and corrupting the religious establishments in conquered nations. Britain first took over its own Church, then it conquered and subverted Catholic Ireland, followed by the leaders of Hinduism and Islam in India, Buddhism in Burma, and then the leaders of Islam in Egypt and the Middle East. The British Empire made organized religion so corrupt that the revolutionary movements that fought against it were often inclined to atheism, and therefore often sympathetic to the views of Marx and the Communist system.
The American system of government is a system far superior to British Imperialism or Soviet Communism. In its ideal the American system respects and protects all of the basic freedoms: Political, Spiritual and Material. Under the American system the people have Political freedom in that they have the freedom (and responsibility) to elect their Representatives; they have Spiritual freedom to worship in any manner they choose, and the government is forbidden to interfere; they have Material freedom insomuch as their elected Representatives live up to their Constitutional duties to provide for and promote the General Welfare, and to ensure a fair economic policy and climate. The American system is also fundamentally Christian in its view that man is created by God, made equal and in His image, with a divine purpose and a positive potential. Any system allowing such great freedom can only be a system that emphasizes the positive aspects of man, in this case man's positive potential. We may all be born sinners, but God created us equal and we all have the potential to fulfill His divine and perfect will in our lives.
FDR's vision for the post-war world was very simple. He envisioned that it would be led by the Big Four: the USA, Great Britain, Russia and China. These would be the 'Four Policemen' to keep the peace. His views on each are very important.
Regarding America he knew that his nation would emerge as the most powerful and wealthiest nation in the world. He viewed this as a great responsibility, and also as a great possibility for positive change. America had taken the lead in bringing Britain into signing the Atlantic Charter, and FDR's plan was that the New York-based United Nations would pick up where the Charter had only begun. The UN would be an international forum for all the nations of the world to meet in an equal environment, to command a global audience, to air their views and negotiate fair settlements of their grievances without resorting to warfare. He saw the UN as an organization that would strengthen the sovereign powers of independent nation states, and initially it proved capable in this regard. FDR had a positive vision for the role of the UN, but he would have had contempt for the elitist organization that the UN is today, that seeks to destroy national sovereignty rather than helping to strengthen it.
In the case of Great Britain, it was clear to FDR that the Empire was fading fast. A military memorandum at the time made this clear,
As a military power, the British Empire in the postwar era will be in a distinctly lower category than the United States and Russia. The primacy of the British Empire in the century before World War I, and her second-to-none position until World War II, have built up a traditional concept of British military power which the British will strive to profit by and maintain in the postwar era.... Both in an absolute sense and relative to the United States and Russia, the British will emerge from the war having lost ground both economically and militarily.
However, as the war continued it became clear to FDR that the British would fight the liquidation of their Empire with every resource they possessed, including their own agents in the American government, which proved so decisive after FDR's death. It was partly because of this knowledge that FDR can be legitimately criticized for being 'soft' on Communism, but people should be sure to understand why. He did so because he saw in Stalin's Russia an ally, both against Hitler and against Imperialism after the war. Without Russia, Hitler would have eventually conquered England, the rest of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, perhaps destroying even many more millions of Jews and other 'undesirables.' Russia was a firm friend in this regard.
Roosevelt also understood another thing about Soviet Russia. He knew that it only continued to exist because of Western support. The Anglo-American Establishment had promoted and bankrolled Bolshevism in the first place as a way to eliminate Tsarist Russia as an Imperial rival. Soviet Russia only survived as a viable government through the loans, grain shipments and technology transfers from Britain and America. FDR knew that Russia could only become as powerful as the West desired her to be.
Much of the hysteria that FDR was pro-Communist can be silenced by the record of his 'Strong China' policy, and his vision for China as a member of the Big Four. Roosevelt was committed to a China led by the nationalist party of Chiang Kai-Shek, and in America the Chinese Nationalists were viewed in opinion polls as America's firm ally, second in importance and loyalty only to the British.
During the war China was in a standoff between the KMT party of Chiang and the Communists under Mao. One of the best sources to understand the intrigues surrounding China's situation at this time is the book "Recasting the Imperial Far East - Britain and America in China, 1945-1950," by Lanxin Xiang. Based on British Foreign Service records and U.S. State Department documents, Xiang shows quite clearly that while FDR supported Chiang, the British were much more sympathetic towards Mao. One of the main reasons was that FDR and Chiang agreed that after the war Britain would no longer be allowed their colonial holdings and preferences in Hong Kong, Canton and Shanghai. This was a possibility that threatened the Empire and infuriated Churchill.
Near the end of the war FDR's personal agent and diplomat for China was the conservative Republican, Major General Patrick J. Hurley. He was sent to Yenan province to negotiate with Mao, to bring the Communists back into line within Chiang's government. Mao refused, and the Communists thereafter referred to the tall, mustachioed Hurley contemptuously as "Little Whiskers." From then on the fiery Hurley referred to Mao as "Mother-----r!"
In March of 1945 Roosevelt sent Hurley on a mission to Moscow and London to attempt to gather support for Chiang against Mao. He achieved success in Moscow, but failed in London. The British were more supportive of Mao than the Soviets! (also see "The British Role In Creating Maoism") Xiang writes,
The Hurley Mission was perhaps FDR's last effort to induce Big-Three cooperation and approval for his version of a "strong China." But the results of the trip did not reach him before his sudden death on 12 April. According to Hurley's record, the trip to Moscow was successful. Stalin promised not to support the so-called Communists in China, though William Averell Harriman and George Kennan remained skeptical of this pledge[!]. The trip to London, however, was "hell-raising." After considerable anxiety and careful preparation, the Foreign Office was dismayed to learn that Hurley's trip had turned out dreadfully. As a top-secret brief prepared for Eden pointed out, the trip's principal objective was to clarify American policy toward the KMT-CCP dispute, but this was clearly unobtainable, given Hurley's attitude. The real drama developed between a vehement British prime minister and the American special envoy with an Irish temper. According to Hurley, "In the discussion with Churchill and Eden, questions pertaining to the reconquest of colonial and imperial territory with American men and lend-lease supplies and the question pertaining to Hong Kong and other problems were interjected by the British." Churchill branded the American long-range policy regarding China as the "great American illusion."
Harriman and Kennan were two of the State Department employees that could be classified as "working for Winston." Harriman, as the U.S. Ambassador to Russia, was responsible more than any other American for creating the Cold War, and he differed greatly with Roosevelt in his vision of the post-war world. For instance, FDR had made an agreement with Stalin in Yalta that Poland would be allowed free elections after the war, but then Harriman worked with the Establishment to create a climate of distrust and he watched as Stalin backed out of his promise. If FDR had lived there would have been no "Warsaw Pact," and to this even Harriman agrees, (also see Treason In America - From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman, by Anton Chaitkin).
Regarding Kennan, the Princeton graduate and career State Department employee was a British admirer and cheerleader for an American Empire. Here is what he wrote in a document for the State Department in 1950, revealing his true Wall Street motivations. Had he been born in Germany he would have made a fine Nazi,
...we have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population... in this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate objectives... We should cease to talk about vague and... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not too far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts.
Regarding Stalin's policy with China, the fact is that Stalin consistently supported Chiang as an American partner, provided the Nationalists with important weapons and equipment, and failed to actively support Mao until the first Sino-Soviet treaty was signed in 1950. The British, on the other hand, saw a great advantage to having Chinese potential squelched under a repressive Communist regime. After FDR died, men like Harriman influenced Truman to betray Chiang and drop his Nationalist Party as a lost cause. Mao was allowed to take over mainland China and he pushed Chiang into Taiwan. The British were then allowed to keep their imperial possessions that included Hong Kong.
Roosevelt's post-war vision was brilliant in that he recognized the inherent evil in Imperialism, while he understood that Communism was a failing system that could not survive long on its own without outside help. In FDR's 'Big Four' system the evil of Imperialism would be represented by Great Britain, but constantly held in check by the three great non-Imperial powers of the United States, Russia and China. Conversely, Communism would be represented in the 'Big Four' by Russia, but it would be contained by the three non-Communist powers of the United States, Great Britain and Chiang's China. Supporting this structure, and helping the 'Four Policemen' to keep the peace, would be the United Nations organization acting as a voice for the lesser powers, and overseeing the transition of previous colonial holdings into independent nations.
FDR's policies and vision are very simply explained by the fact that his goal was to export the American ideal to the entire world. And all of the shallow and narrow-minded accusations that FDR was soft on Communism are very simply explained by the fact that he saw Imperialism as an even greater evil. Communism existed only as a reaction to injustice, and Imperialism was often the source of that injustice. Rather than fight the reaction, FDR's policies focused on eliminating the injustice that fueled it. FDR knew that if his Four Freedoms were honored, and Imperialism removed from the world as a system of government, then Communism would be left without any oxygen to breathe. If FDR's post-war vision had been achieved the Soviet Union would have either suffocated or been forced to reform, without the Cold War.
FDR's views on Communism were much the same as Martin Luther King's, who said within his sermon "How Should A Christian View Communism?",
We must not engage in a negative anti-Communism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against Communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice and righteousness. After our condemnation of the philosophy of Communism has been eloquently expressed, we must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, injustice, and racial discrimination which are the fertile soil in which the seed of Communism grows and develops.
FDR looked to a future world that would be led by American principles and greatly relieved of the two evils of Communism and Imperialism, but unfortunately, there was one way in which his vision could be potentially ruined, and he understood it very clearly. He spoke about this fear with his son Elliott after one of his many meetings with Stalin,
"...the biggest thing was in making clear to Stalin that the United States and Great Britain were not allied in one common bloc against the Soviet Union. I think we've got rid of that idea, once and for all. I hope so. The one thing that could upset the applecart, after the war, is if the world is divided again, Russia against England and us."
The End of Imperialism?
When FDR died the pro-British Eastern Establishment took over American foreign policy. That is the simplest way to explain the speed in which America strayed from the course that FDR had set for her. Historian Walter Isaacson, in his book The Wise Men - Six Friends and the World They Made, documents the role played by Truman's advisors, the six Wall Street insiders Kennan, Acheson, Bohlen, Lovett, Harriman and McCloy. These men were at the heart of the profit-minded American Establishment and they quickly placed Truman and the United States on the road to Empire. Isaacson writes that only hours after FDR's death Bohlen prepared a background paper for the new president to "educate" him on the Soviet threat. Under Truman, Roosevelt's greatest fear quickly became a reality. Below is a list of Truman's "achievements" that helped to create the Cold War:
-Truman presided over the dropping of the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The biggest lie regarding this event is the one most often repeated, which is that these bombs saved a million American lives. General Douglas MacArthur himself believed that the bombs were cruel and unnecessary and that a land invasion of Japan would never have been needed. (See "Why Hiroshima Was Bombed: The 'Utopians' Duped a Nation"). The only purpose it served was to fuel the Cold War by creating Russian mistrust of American intentions.
-Truman created the CIA by signing the National Security Act in 1947. This act placed the USA on a permanent war footing in which 'security analysts' began to scour the globe looking for any potential American enemies. The godfather of the CIA was Sir William Stephenson, the head of British Intelligence in the US, and the CIA immediately began to act as agents of Empire, be it the Anglo or American form.
Note: (Michael Ruppert gives an excellent interview detailing the constant incestuous relationship between the CIA and Wall Street, which is the key to understanding the Cold War. The Act itself was written by Clark Clifford, a Wall Street banker and lawyer, later at the center of the BCCI scandal of the early '90s.)
-Truman allowed China to be taken by Mao's Communists, as related above, that promised not to threaten Britain's colonial possessions within China.
-Truman watched as the "Truman Doctrine" was created for him, which laid the basis for American preventive actions and intervention into the affairs of nations that were "going Communist." Below we will explain further how "going Communist" was defined by the Establishment. Often it simply referred to a nation's refusal to bend to Anglo-American corporate domination.
-Truman presided over the breakup of Korea into North and South and the escalation of the conflict into war. He then fired General MacArthur for trying to actually win the war.
Truman is viewed as one of the first Cold War warriors, but he was actually quite 'soft' on Communism when it came to China and Korea. As the record shows he was also very 'soft' when confronted with the evils of Imperialism.
During the wartime conferences in Cairo Roosevelt had met with Chiang Kai-Shek and promised him two things. First, that the Soviets would be required to return Manchuria to China, respect China's boundary and promise not to interfere in China's internal political problems. Second, that the US would "back the Chinese in their postwar refusal of extraterritorial rights to the British in Hong Kong, Canton, and Shanghai." To back up this promise FDR made the further personal guarantee that "only American warships would enter those and other Chinese ports and that British warships would be excluded when Japanese resistance ceased."
Elliott Roosevelt in As He Saw It records what happened to these two promises after FDR's death. The first was agreed to and lived up to by the Soviets through the excellent diplomacy of General Hurley. On the other hand, "The first warships to enter Chinese ports were British warships. The order excluding them was 'held up' somewhere, in all probability in the State Department."
This breach of faith in favor of the British Empire was the first in a long series of American betrayals of Chiang Kai-Shek. The same went for the newly liberated colonies in southeast Asia. Regarding Indochina, FDR's attitude was expressed to Chiang that...
...the French would have no right, after the war, simply to walk back into Indo-China and reclaim that rich land for no reason other than it had once been their colony. And he [FDR] had insisted to Chiang that the most the French should have was a trusteeship of their colonies responsible to a United Nations organization, looking toward eventual independence, once the United Nations were satisfied that the colonies could manage their own affairs.
FDR had the same view regarding Dutch Indonesia, and British Malaysia and Burma. He knew that the British Empire depended upon keeping all of these colonies under European control. In the middle of the war at Casablanca FDR had to face down a ludicrous British suggestion to create a whole new theater and mount an invasion of Burma through Singapore. Elliott recounts a conversation with his Father on the subject,
"You know why Winston has Mountbatten here with him? It's so that I can be filled up to the ears with arguments about how important it is to divert landing-craft to Southeast Asia."
I looked my astonishment and incredulity.
"Sure," he went on. "Burma. the British want to recapture Burma. It's the first time they've shown any real interest in the Pacific war, and why? For their colonial empire!"
"But what's that got to do with Mountbatten?"
"He's their choice for Supreme Allied Commander of a brand-new theater -- Southeast Asia."
..."It's all part of the British colonial question," Father was saying. "Burma -- that affects India, and French Indo-China, and Indonesia -- they're all interrelated. If one gets its freedom, the others will get ideas. That's why Winston is so anxious to keep de Gaulle in his corner. De Gaulle isn't any more interested in seeing a colonial empire disappear than Churchill is."
John Newsinger's article "The Empire Strikes Back" illuminates the forgotten post-war history of Vietnam and Indonesia,
In 1942 the Japanese armies overran much of the territory of the European empires in the Far East. Malaya, Burma, Indonesia and Vietnam were all occupied by Japanese troops. Once Japan was in retreat the European powers were determined to reclaim their empires. With France and Holland still too weak after suffering the effects of German occupation, it fell to the British Labour government to restore French rule in Vietnam and Dutch rule in Indonesia as well as reoccupying Britain's own colonies. In both countries the British met with fierce resistance that inaugurated bloody wars of national liberation.
During the war Ho Chi Minh had led his Viet Minh forces against the Japanese, taking control of much of the north by the end of the war, and then Hanoi on August 19, 1945. On September 2, Ho Chi Minh declared independence for the nation of Vietnam, with a document that begins (text here) with a quote from the American Declaration of Independence, and ends with a passionate condemnation of Vietnam's French colonial masters. Ho Chi Minh looked to the United States for support, who could have easily influenced his movement in a positive way, because he was once an American ally. In 1942 he had been captured by Chiang Kai-Shek while he was organizing his movement in China. At this the United States lobbied Chiang for his release, which was granted. Then the US provided his Viet Minh forces with arms and equipment to fight the Japanese. As it turned out, after FDR's death Truman stood by while the British reconquered Vietnam and handed it back over to the French. Newsinger explains,
South Vietnam had been placed under British control at the Potsdam Conference of July 1945 [after FDR's death in April]. The British commander, Lord Mountbatten, sent over 20,000 troops of the 20th Indian division under General Douglas Gracey to occupy Saigon. The first soldiers arrived on 6 September and increased to full strength over the following weeks. The Committee of the South attempted to open negotiations, but was ignored. As Gracey later boasted, 'I was welcomed on arrival by the Vietminh. I promptly kicked them out.' Instead he set about driving the nationalists off the streets, banning meetings and demonstrations, closing down the Vietnamese press, prohibiting Vietnamese from carrying weapons and restoring Japanese curfew regulations. On 23 September, with his connivance and under his protection, French troops staged a coup. They seized public buildings, including the town hall, and made widespread arrests. This provoked fierce resistance.
Saigon was paralysed by a general strike and fighting broke out in many parts of the city. Barricades were erected and poorly armed rebels attempted to fight it out with heavily armed British troops. For a while it looked as if the British were in danger of being cut off from reinforcements when Vietnamese forces nearly succeeded in overrunning Tan Son Nhut airfield. They were driven off. While this fighting continued the Vietminh took the opportunity to destroy the Vietnamese Trotskyist movement, executing its leaders.
At last the British secured control of the city but only after the liberal use of artillery, the deliberate burning of areas held by the rebels and the rearming and use of surrendered Japanese troops...
After the city was cleared fighting continued on the outskirts and into the surrounding countryside. Here once again use was made of Japanese troops in an effort to keep down British casualties. The orders issued by Gracey instructed his troops to 'always use the maximum force available to ensure wiping out any hostiles... If one uses too much no harm is done'.
By the end of December--as large numbers of French troops began arriving--British withdrawal began...
Gracey had saved Vietnam for the French and thereby precipitated a war of national liberation that was to last another 30 years.
Newsinger goes on to describe Britain's similar action in Indonesia, this time on an even larger scale,
Although less well known than British intervention in Vietnam, the British intervention in Indonesia was a much more serious affair, involving over 60,000 troops and considerably greater loss of life. It also provoked a remarkable display of working class solidarity.
In Indonesia, the nationalists led by Sukharno proclaimed their independence from Holland on 17 August 1945, even before the Japanese surrender. They swiftly took control of Java and the other islands so that when the first British troops arrived on 29 September they were met by banners proclaiming 'Indonesia for the Indonesians'.
The British, once again using mainly Indian troops, occupied a number of coastal towns (Jakarta, Demarang and Malang). Once it became clear that they were bringing the Dutch back with them, fierce fighting broke out. Once again Japanese troops were rearmed and used against the rebels.
The most serious fighting took place in Surabaya. This battle is virtually unknown in Britain but in Indonesia it is celebrated as a national holiday. Some 4,000 British troops arrived on 25 October and the brigade commander, Brigadier Mallaby, demanded that the Indonesians disarm and surrender the city. Three days later they began advancing into the city and were suddenly attacked by some 20,000 rebels. The British were driven back with heavy losses: Mallaby himself was killed as were over 200 of his men. This defeat precipitated a full scale revolt against the British that spread throughout Java.
The British poured reinforcements into Surabaya and on 9 November demanded the Indonesians surrender. The following day two cruisers and three destroyers together with tanks and artillery began shelling the city while RAF fighter bombers dropped 1500lb bombs on rebel strong points. Only after three days of street fighting was the city taken. Altogether British and Indian casualties were over 900 killed and wounded, while Indonesian casualties were estimated at over 10,000.
Elsewhere the British were driven out of Magelang and Ambarawa. In Bandung they gave the nationalists an ultimatum to evacuate the city by midnight of 24 March. The rebels fired the city as they left, leaving the British to occupy a ruined ghost town.
After the occupation of Bandung an uneasy stalemate operated while Dutch troops were poured in. These were armed and equipped by the Labour government. As their strength built up, British troops were withdrawn. The last were not evacuated until November 1946.
Total British and Indian casualties were an incredible 620 killed and 1447 wounded with another 327 missing. Over 1,000 Japanese troops were killed fighting alongside the British. Indonesian casualties are estimated at 20,000 dead. The scale of the fighting was a complete shock to the British and played a significant part in convincing the generals that it would not be possible to hold Burma or India against a population in revolt...
While both the French and the Dutch were eventually driven out of their colonies, it was British troops who had enabled them to return in the first place. These two episodes are usually removed from the Labour government's record, but they deserve to be remembered as a time when British and Indian soldiers were sent in to kill in order to restore European imperialism in the face of popular revolution.
Indonesia finally kicked out the Dutch in 1949, after continual fighting made it clear that Indonesians would accept nothing less than full independence. The Anglo-American Establishment looked on quietly, and began making plans to deal with Sukarno at a later date (see Part 3).
The British Empire was greatly humbled by World War II. Imperialism seemed to be defeated, and one by one British colonies gained independence. First India and Pakistan in 1947, then Burma and Sri Lanka in 1948. Egypt then kicked the British out of the Suez in 1956, which was also the year Sudan achieved independence, followed a year later by Ghana. In the 1960's Malta, Cyprus, Kuwait, South Yemen, Malaysia, Singapore, Samoa, Surinam, Guyana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Sierra Leone and Gambia all achieved independence. In the 1970's the nations of Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Fiji followed after. Few honest historians would argue that the breakup of the British Empire was the most significant political change in the twentieth century. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. commented on the extraordinary demise of Imperialism within his sermon "The Death of Evil Upon the Seashore," in 1956,
Gradually we have seen the forces of freedom and justice emerge victoriously out of some Red Sea, only to look back and see the forces of oppression and colonialism dead upon the seashore. There are approximately 2,400,000,000 people in the world today. The vast majority of these people are found in Africa and Asia. More than 1,400,000,000 of the peoples of the world are found on these two continents. Fifty years ago most of these people were dominated politically, exploited economically, segregated and humiliated by some foreign power. There were 400,000,000 persons in India and Pakistan under the iron feet of British rule. There were 600,000,000 persons in China under the gripping yoke of British, Dutch and French rule. There were 100,000,000 persons in Indonesia under the oppressive hands of Dutch rule. There were 200,000,000 persons in Africa dominated and exploited by the British, the Belgium, the French, and the Dutch. The great struggle of the Twentieth Century has been between these exploited masses questing for freedom and the colonial powers seeking to maintain their domination.
What we are seeing now in this struggle is the gradual victory of the forces of freedom and justice. The Red Sea has opened, and today most of these exploited masses have won their freedom from the Egypt of colonialism and are now free to move toward the promised land of economic security and cultural development. As they look back, they clearly see the evils of colonialism and imperialism dead upon the seashore.
Unfortunately Dr. King was premature in stating that colonial peoples were "free to move toward the promised land of economic security and cultural development." With the demise of overt Imperialism, the Anglo-American Establishment settled on a policy of covert neo-Imperialism, a policy that was greatly enabled by the Cold War and the manufactured hysteria of the "Communist menace!"
The Third World War
Before we go on to examine the nature of the Anglo-American Establishment's post-war policy of neo-Imperialism we must first examine the situation that faced Third World nations after they achieved democracy and/or independence. In almost every Third World nation centuries of colonial rule had been achieved only through the willingness of a tiny indigenous elite that acted as partners with the colonial powers, enabling them in their looting of natural resources, their tax collection, in their general oppression of the masses, and in their suppression of any popular revolts. These were the Tory factions, always rewarded for their collaboration with money, land and political power. This was true within Britain's early American colonies, in Britain's colonies in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, and also within the Latin American colonies of the former Spanish Empire. The colonial powers created an entrenched elite and then when they withdrew they often left behind a situation of great inequality between their favored elite minority that possessed the wealth and the majority of the land, and the large impoverished majority.
In the aftermath of World War II Roosevelt's hopes and Churchill's fears were confirmed: Independence became contagious! Once one nation achieved freedom other nations followed after in domino fashion. But often independence provoked a conflict within the new nations, and the wealthy landholding elites faced off against the majority of their own impoverished people. The people demanded reform and greater equality, while the elites were content to keep the people poor and continue their favored trade relationships with the previous colonial powers. After independence the people only prevailed when true Democracy was realized, and through the democratic process the popular majority almost always enacted legislation that curbed the power of their own treasonous elites. The new legislation usually included policies of land reform, nationalization of the most important natural resources, and industrialization:
- Land reform was a process whereby the state forcibly purchased land from the elites and then sold it back cheaply to the people. Just as Western nations enact laws forbidding corporate monopolies, newly independent Third World nations knew that their national progress demanded action against the elitist practice of holding land monopolies. In her book How the Other Half Dies, Susan George writes,
The most pressing cause of the abject poverty which millions of people in this world endure is that a mere 2.5% of landowners with more than 100 hectares control nearly three quarters of all the land in the world - with the top 0.23% controlling half.
- Nationalization of resources did away with the trade agreements between the elites and the colonial powers that enriched both but did nothing positive for the majority of the population. With nationalization the people finally received compensation for the natural wealth that belonged to them in the first place. Nationalization of resources was often a major factor inducing Anglo-American intervention, as we will document shortly.
- Industrialization is simply a process of modernization, but this was also resisted by the colonial powers. If a country became industrialized then it depended less and less on manufactured Western goods and the Corporate interests of the Establishment lost an outlet for their commodities. Industrialization makes a nation self-sufficient, less dependent on foreign ties, and less susceptible to foreign domination, economic or otherwise. In Intervention and Revolution author Richard J. Barnet comments on industrialization from the perspective of the revolutionary fighting against neo-Imperialism,
The Revolutionary is convinced that the very policies on which the United States banks its hopes of development actually destroy the possibilities of progress. He accuses the United States of using its foreign-aid funds to sponsor a small entrepreneurial elite who are able to pay for U.S.-manufactured imports, when, if it really wanted to encourage independent economies, it would finance local manufacturing facilities. (The trend is toward increased U.S. investment in factories, but local ownership is minimal.) The Revolutionary believes that his country is assigned a more or less permanent role in the world economy as the poor farmer and miner. Since the price of raw commodities can to a great extent be controlled by the powerful nations, this policy too ensures continued political dependence, with very little prospect of economic self-sufficiency. He is convinced that these policies are deliberate attempts to continue a pattern of exploitation.
After World War II the colonial powers were willing to withdraw from their Third World possessions, and they were willing to allow their colonies at least the claim of "Independence," but they were much less willing to sit idly by as Democracy brought reforms that radically changed their favorable economic relations with the new nations. In this regard the colonial powers and the Third World elites remained allies in the struggle against the rest of the world's impoverished masses. Together they resisted Reform, then they resisted Democracy itself, then Dictators were installed to "keep the peace" and create "stability." All with the objective of Profit. This was neo-Imperialism.
In this internal Third World fight of the disenfranchised people versus their own elitist masters the people at first looked to the United States for help. It was the original American example, followed by one hundred and fifty years as the self-proclaimed "Defender of Democracy," that brought about this hope. Barnet writes that "by promoting the rhetoric of freedom and the vision of the abundant life around the world, the United States itself has helped stir up revolution." But the United States turned away from the people in this global revolution and instead embraced the elites of the Third World as business partners. With the United States unwilling to fulfill its self-proclaimed role, where could the people of the Third World turn for assistance to achieve freedom? Only the international Communist movement was there to fill the void. Communism offered the only hope because America had betrayed its historic mission and in effect had become just another Empire.
The Soviet Union emerged from World War II as the West's greatest enemy, and this occurred in large part due to the diplomacy and propaganda of the Anglo-American Establishment. It was no accident. The Empire-minded Establishment needed a global threat under which to carry out their designs, and it just so happened that Communism, the most powerful anti-Imperialist force in the world, fit the bill perfectly. With the ever present specter of Communism as an excuse Imperialism found new life.
The conflict that resulted is known as the "Cold War," but former CIA director John Stockwell has a more appropriate term for it, as he explains in his book, The Praetorian Guard - The U.S. Role in the New World Order,
Since the mid-1950s [U.S. military operations] have all been conducted in Third World countries where governments do not have the power to force the United States to stop its brutal and destabilizing campaigns.
One might call this the "Third World War." It is a war that has been fought by the United States against the Third World. Others call it the Cold War and focus on the anti-Communist and anti-Soviet rationales, but the dead are not Soviets; they are people of the Third World... Altogether, perhaps twenty million people died in the Cold War. As wars go, it has been the second or third most destructive of human life in all of history, after World War I and World War II.
The six million people the CIA has helped to kill are people of the Mitumba Mountains of the Congo, the jungles of Southeast Asia, and the hills of northern Nicaragua. They are people without ICBMs or armies or navies, incapable of doing physical damage to the United States. The 22,000 killed in Nicaragua, for example, are not Russians; they are not Cuban soldiers or advisors; they are not even mostly Sandinistas. A majority are rag-poor peasants, including large numbers of women and children.
The change in America from being a Republic to becoming an Empire, and from being a defender of freedom, to becoming its most powerful opponent, did not come about naturally. It came about through the influence of the once-great British Empire, and from the actions of the treasonous American Establishment that admired it. In his book Blood, Class, and Nostalgia - Anglo-American Ironies, British author Christopher Hitchens comments on this American change in chapter one entitled "Greece to Their Rome." He quotes from an analogy made by Harold Macmillan, Churchill's emissary to General Eisenhower during World War II and later British Prime Minister. Macmillan understood that the inevitable British fall would be met with an American rise, and remarked that it fell to the British to play the role of Greece to the new American Rome. In other words Macmillan saw Britain as a positive influence on America, just as the Roman Republic was at first based on the positive aspects of classical Greek culture such as Greek philosophy and the Greek concept of Democracy. Hitchens goes on to ridicule Macmillan's self-righteous delusion, saying that "England, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, or what you will, had never been Greece to America's Rome. It had always been Rome to America's -- what?" Hitchens declines to answer, and goes on to write later in the chapter,
...the ambiguities of this Graeco-Roman synthesis are more interesting than a mere political and diplomatic compromise might suggest. Long before Macmillan, in fact, the British were striving to limit the extent of American republicanism, which they saw as a threat and a rival. Throughout the nineteenth century, as I will argue and show, they tried to prevent the emergence of a continental United States. Thwarted in this effort, they turned to making common cause with a new "expansionist" America in 1898. Seeking thereafter to engage America on the British side in European quarrels, they stimulated and helped aggrandize what might be termed the superpower spirit among American elites. In the titanic battle against Hitler, they were forced to acknowledge that the proportions of the relationship had changed, and that Britain could now survive only as junior partner. But along the way, huge alterations had been made in the American system. The United States found itself committed in far-off places with which it had no common history, it found itself a nuclear power, it found itself involved as an arbiter in the politics of old Europe, and it found itself engaged along the widest front in history against the Soviet Union. In the origination of all these historical changes, it had been the British connection that was seminal.
Near the end of his remarkably insightful book Hitchens makes the same conclusions again,
It might well be argued that the United States would have chosen empire over republic in any case, taking its precedents and promptings from itself or elsewhere, but in point of fact the real connection was almost always the English one... American rediscovery of the intoxications of a "natural" aristocracy, of an "expansionist" credo, of an affection for the marks and baubles of caste -- all this was conveyed from England as directly as the chests of tea that had once ended up in Boston Harbor. And every time that the United States has been on the verge of a decision: to annex the Spanish Empire, to go to war in Europe, to announce the Soviet Union as the official enemy, to acquire new and weighty "burdens" in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, to embark upon nuclear weapons research, to establish a national nexus of intelligence gathering, there has been a deceptively languid English advisor at the elbow, urging yes in tones that neither hector nor beseech but are always somehow beguiling.
back to index