Kissinger - Gary Allen |
As America's Bicentennial year began, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger could (and undoubtedly did) take pride in the fact that, almost single-handedly, he had sewn together a new foreign policy for America. Secret deal by secret deal, detente had become a reality.
But within a few months, the entire fabric was in danger of being torn to shreds. There were violations and rumors of violations of the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks agreements; voices were heard loudly protesting that the United States was slipping (or may have already slipped) to number two in comparison with Soviet military strength; and other serious charges were aired.
In the face of mounting doubts and criticism that Kissinger's policies had been the best policies for America, President Ford tried to defuse discussion by simply dropping the word "detente" from the White House vocabulary. Henceforth, members of the Ford Administration were told, the password is "peace through strength".
Kissinger was not happy with the decision, but agreed to go along with the verbal gymnastics during an election year. After all, no one had suggested that the policies themselves be changed, merely the pet phrases used to describe them. (According to Time magazine, Kissinger complained that the move represented "a petty capitulation to right-wing critics" on the part of the President).
Detente has been the foundation of pax Kissingerae, the very cornerstone of the policy Henry Kissinger packaged and sold to Presidents Nixon and Ford. The word itself comes from the French and can mean either a "relaxation of tensions" or a "a trigger". It was the first explanation that was sold to a trusting American public.
We were told that: "The Cold War is over" and "The Communists have mellowed". Like small children, we were lectured, "It's time for a more mature relationship between countries". And above all, we were promised that detente would mean a give-and-take, a fair exchange, acceptable accommodation by both sides. In practice, detente turned out to be a one-way street benefiting only the Communists. Consider:
In 1968, when the first SALT talks were scheduled, the United States possessed 1,054 intercontinental ballistic missiles; the Soviets had only 850. By 1975, however, the Soviets had 1,618 long-range missiles deployed while we, in turn, still had 1,054. In other words, a five-to-four American advantage had changed to an eight-to-five Soviet superiority. And that's just the beginning.
During those same eight years, the Soviet armed forces had expanded from 1.8 million men to over 2.5 million. Meanwhile, the United States was scuttling the draft and downgrading its own armed services; the result was a drop to military forces from 940,000 men in uniform to less than 790,000.
On the high seas, the Soviets maintain a flotilla of 253 attack submarines, compared to 73 for the United States. They have more than twice as many supply ships as we do—2,358 to 1,009. And, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has estimated the Red lead in tactical aircraft at a ratio of nearly two-to-one.
The Soviet submarine fleet is larger than American, British, and French forces combined. Moreover, the Communists now have the world's largest submarines, Delta-class vessels one and one-half times longer that a football field; each one is equipped with twelve tubes for firing nuclear missiles. (The missiles, incidentally, have a range of some 4,000 miles. And with such subs now patrolling off our Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts, there is not a town in America that is not within range of Soviet nuclear missiles this very evening.)
Meanwhile, in this era of detente, other parts of our military arsenal are allowed to rust away. Prior to the advent of Henry the K, the U.S. could deploy 434 major combat ships. Today, that number has been cut almost in half, to only 253. Even more alarming, Congressman Les Aspin told his colleagues in the House on February 3, 1976 that because of poor maintenance, only thirty percent of U.S. Navy vessels can meet "the standard of full combat readiness". Moreover, the Congressman said, nearly half the Navy's 7,400 aircraft are unprepared and unequipped for hostile action.
While British authority Captain John Moore, in the book The Soviet Navy Today (published in January 1976), says that the Soviet Navy's firepower is "the most potent of any fleet that ever existed", the U.S. fleet is the smallest and weakest it has been at any time since 1939. Moore estimates that the United States is presently at least seven to eight years behind the Communists, and we are falling further behind every week.
The Red Navy dominates the North Sea, patrols the Arctic and the Antarctic, is "strongly present" in the Atlantic and Pacific, controls Sweden's sea outlets of Skagerrak and Kattegat, and is heavily and visibly present in the Mediterranean and Arabian Seas, the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, and off both coasts of Africa.
The Soviets scored a major victory in 1975 without flexing a muscle, when Henry the Knife ordered the $6 billion anti-ballistic missile defense complex in North Dakota shut down. The ABM complex had been operational for only one month when it was decided, in the spirit of detente , that it could be scrapped.
Coming at a time when the Russians were improving and modernizing their own anti-ballistic missile system, the move left the United States with no protection against Soviet or Chinese missiles. Super K has already been quoted as saying that Red China and the Soviet Union are no longer "revolutionary" states. As the Secretary sees it, the two Communist giants "no longer entertain ambitions to destroy the existing international order".
Soviet party chief Leonid Brezhnev has a slightly different perspective. He told a meeting of the Politburo in 1974:
"We Communists have got to string along with the capitalists for a while. We need their agriculture and their technology. But we are going to continue massive military programs. . . (soon) we will be in a position to return to a much more aggressive foreign policy designed to gain the upper-hand. . . "
We do not believe that the United States must match the Soviets man for man, tank for tank, or even ship for ship in order to protect itself. Today, technology is the equalizer that the Colt .45 was in the old West.
Possibly the ultimate equalizer, the one which could guarantee our safety, is the cruise missile. This nuclear warhead is small enough to be launched from almost anywhere, powerful enough to fly 2,000 miles or more, and accurate enough to strike within 100 feet of its target.
Now, here is the punch line: Henry Kissinger has offered to bargain away even this ultimate weapon at the SALT table!
Under the circumstances, it can come as no surprise that an analysis of our military preparedness, undertaken by the non-partisan Library of Congress, warns that the balance of military power is shifting strongly in favor of the Soviet Union. The report was prepared for the Senate Armed Services Committee, released to the public in February 1976, it states that unless current policies are reversed, the United States will have to reassess its position as a global power!
While the crippling of our military position by our detente-minded Secretary of State was becoming an open scandal in Washington, another shock wave hit the Capitol. In late February 1976, it was confirmed that previous estimates by the CIA of Soviet military expenditures were fifty percent too low.
At the beginning of this election year, world renowned nuclear physicist Edward Teller warned that the United States was already a clear second to the Soviet Union in military strength. "We would have no chance against Russia if there was a conflict now", he said. Dr. Teller added he believed it would take us ten years to surpass the Soviets even if present policies are changed.
By now you may be asking, what in God's name has happened during the past eight years? How did an eight-to-one American military superiority over the Communists vanish in less than a decade?
Detente's disastrous roots stretch back at least thirty years, to Yalta and similar post-World War II concessions to the Communists. Trying to explain why he had been so incredibly generous to Soviet strongman Stalin, a sick and war-weary Franklin D. Roosevelt told our Ambassador to Moscow, William C. Bullitt:
"I have a hunch that Stalin. . . does not want anything but security for his country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, he won't try to annex anything and he will work with me for a world of peace and harmony."
Roosevelt's wishful dream of "a world of peace and harmony" was forgotten during the Soviet conquest of Eastern Europe and the Communist Chinese assault on Korea.
But by the mid-1950s the peacemongers were setting up shop once again. One of the most important operations was something known as the Pugwash Conferences. Officially described as "Joint Conferences on Science and World Affairs" between Russian and American scientists and intellectuals, the first meeting took place in 1957 at the Pugwash, Nova Scotia home of the notorious Soviet apologist, Cyrus Eaton.
Since then, more than twenty "Pugwash Conferences" have been held, most of them outside the United States and all of them financed by the tax-exempt Rockefeller-CFR foundations. An active participant in those early meetings was Henry A. Kissinger.
The Pugwash Conferences did not push detente , but only because the word had not been coined back then. The pet phrase of the conferees was "disarmament". It was at these meetings that the framework for the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was constructed.
Remember the first test Ban Treaty? The Soviets signed it and paid lip service to it for almost a year—while they made secret preparations for the mightiest series of nuclear tests they had ever conducted. While most Americans were still in shock because of the Communists' blatant deceit, another test ban treaty was prepared in 1963. This one froze the advantages that the Soviets had gained by betraying the first one—and guaranteed that the United States would not conduct additional nuclear tests.
Over vociferous protests from countless Americans, the United States signed the second Nuclear Test Ban Treaty as well. Professor Kissinger and his crowd were delighted.
But all of this was just the warm-up for the main event. In the early '60s, Congress approved legislation creating something called the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. A program of "general and complete disarmament" became the official policy of the United States.
The entire sequence is a fascinating illustration of how the Shadow Government achieves its aims. The first serious disarmament proposal was produced by the Council on Foreign Relations in 1959. The idea was then discussed at a Pugwash Conference, and, in September 1960, the soviets presented their own disarmament program.
One year later, in September 1961, the Kennedy Administration issued its disarmament proposal, in State Department Publication 7277, Freedom From War.
Now, here is the clincher: all four proposals—from the CFR, the Pugwash Conference, the Soviets, and the State Department—are virtually identical! For more details on this amazing "coincidence", see Chapter Eight of my previous book, The Rockefeller File.
The first Secretary of Defense to implement this policy was CFR member Robert S. McNamara, who held office from 1961 through 1968. During that time, he succeeded in reducing our nuclear striking force by fifty percent; scrapping three-quarters of our multi-megaton missiles and half of the Minuteman missiles; blocking development of the B-70 strategic bomber after it had proven its effectiveness; cancelling the Skybold, Pluto, Dynasoar, and Orion missile systems; and moth-balling much of the sea and air fleets he inherited.
In fact, McNamara destroyed more operational U.S. strategic weapons than the Soviets could have destroyed in a full-scale nuclear attack!
All of these accomplishments would pale in comparison to what Henry the K would accomplish for the disarmament lobby during the next eight years, however. The intellectual with the heavy accent and even heavier connections had come a long way, baby, since those first Pugwash Conferences.
The Strategic Arms Limitations Talks, or SALT 1, were Henry's first big opportunity. Curiously, had it not been for the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, the talks would have been over before he was in office. The first SALT conference was originally scheduled to be held in July 1968. When Soviet tanks rumbled into Czechoslovakia, however, to crush the "liberal spring" of Alexander Dubcek (only two weeks after Soviet officials had signed the Declaration of Bratislava, guaranteeing Czech independence!), it was decided to postpone the SALT meetings until November 1969.
Having gotten his big chance, Henry was not going to let anyone else interfere with his operation. At the SALT talks, Henry the K no longer was an understudy. Suddenly he had a starring role. And he was not about to let anyone else share the spotlight with him.
In his book Cold Dawn, the behind-the-scenes story of SALT, John Newhouse portrays Kissinger as secrecy obsessed, suspicious of his own staff, and constantly scheming to grasp more power and control over other positions and personnel. Ultimately, Henry the Knife would successfully emerge as the sole American architect of SALT.
Even such long-time and influential Liberals as Paul Nitze and Gerard Smith found it impossible to get along with fellow-CFR member Kissinger. Nitze, the senior delegate at earlier SALT conferences, had such serious disputes with Kissinger that he quit the delegations. Smith, head of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, had been the chief U.S. arms negotiator before Kissinger came along.
When Henry did not even consult with him during the last twenty days of negotiations—preferring secret deals directly with the Soviets—Smith blew his top. But in the end, it was Smith, not Kissinger, who was "retired" from his position. In short, at SALT it was Henry Kissinger, and no one else, who arranged America's terms. Just what kind of a deal did he endorse? In their exhaustive 800-page analysis, Kissinger on the Couch , authors Phyllis Schlafly and Chester Ward say that SALT 1 was incredibly slanted to favor the Soviets:
"Every single key provision of both SALT agreements originated with Soviet strategic experts and planners in the Kremlin, was approved by Leonid Brezhnev and his closest associates in the Politburo, and was passed—usually by Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin to Henry Kissinger, who then provided the rationalization for it and "sold" it to President Nixon.
"Kissinger not only accepted Soviet dictation of all the key provisions of the agreements, but sold them to President Nixon and the nation by providing rationalizations he knew were misleading. That is to say, he was working with the Soviets and against the United States of America. He was deliberately and elaborately deceiving the American people, Congress, and probably the President with his cunning charade. . .
"All the substantive provisions of both, SALT 1 agreements were in fact dictated by the Kremlin and secretly accepted by Henry Kissinger without the participation of the U.S. SALT delegation."
Just how bad were the SALT agreements? Unless you are a paranoid masochist, with a secret lust to see this Republic destroyed, they are a disaster. The SALT 1 Treaty, which Henry the K so proudly exhibited, granted the Soviets a 41-percent superiority in land-based missiles, a 94-percent superiority in sea-based missiles, and a 50-percent superiority in submarines.
Senators Barry Goldwater and John Tower joined other legislators in warning that the agreements guarantee the Communists a four-to-one advantage over the U.S. in missile payload capability; permit the Reds to continue building nuclear submarines while blocking us from doing the same; and, assure the Soviets of a three-to-two advantage in the number of missiles deployed.
General Bruce K. Holloway, former Commander-in-Chief of the Strategic Air Command, stated in 1971 that "The U.S.S.R. exceeds us in every offensive and defensive strategic weapon system, except missile submarines." This one slight advantage is rapidly disappearing, thanks to Secretary Kissinger.
Even though the SALT 1 accord was slanted in the Soviets' favor on every important point, apparently this was not enough for the Communists. For the signatures of the signers barely had time to dry before reports began leaking out of Washington that the Russians, once again, were cheating.
The only surprise would have been if the Communists had kept their word. Out of seventeen previous agreements with the U.S. relating to arms and defense, the Soviets have broken every single one.
The big story, however, was not that the Communists had violated yet another agreement—such disparate sources as muckraking columnist Jack Anderson and the respected trade journal Aviation Week & Space Technology agreed on that—but that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was deceiving the public, and perhaps even the President, about such violations. Former chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr., a vocal and persistent critic of detente, charged that Kissinger:
"The Soviets have violated the basic contracts, the attached protocols, the agreed interpretations, and the unilateral declarations", Zumwalt charged. "The U.S. has protested to the SCG. That group—the President's answer notwithstanding—is not an investigative or fact-finding body, nor can it form conclusions about violations. . . The evidence from the intelligence community is inarguable. . . the Soviets have lied to us."
According to the Admiral, it is not just the Soviets who deliberately distort the truth. In February 1976, the San Francisco Chronicle carried some major revelations by Zumwalt of conversations he had with Kissinger six years earlier. In notes he made at the time, Admiral Zumwalt wrote:
"K feels the U.S. has passed its historic high point like so many earlier civilizations. He believes the U.S. is on the downhill. . .
"He states that his job is to persuade the Russians to give us the best deal we can get, recognizing that the historical forces favor them. He says that in the light of history, he will be recognized as one of those who negotiated terms favorable to the Soviets, but that the American people have only themselves to blame because they lack the stamina to stay the course against the Russians, who are Sparta to our Athens."
The Secretary of State branded Zumwalt's revelations as "contemptible falsehoods". The Admiral responded: "Kissinger's answer is just one more indication that liars lie."
If we score each year of the Kissinger Era as one round in the match between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., the total in this Bicentennial election year stands at East 8, West 0. In Germany, the 1970 treaties with Russia and Poland negotiated by Willi Brandt and the 1971 agreement on Berlin were clear victories for the Communists. In conferences involving Warsaw Pact and NATO forces, the Soviet bloc almost without exception has come out ahead. In terms of aid and trade, the Communists have made out like the bandits they are. And in discussions of arms limitations, as we have seen, pax Kissing erne has meant a clean sweep for the Communists.
Perhaps the Reds' clearest victory, at least psychologically, occurred in Helsinki, Finland in July 1975, when President Ford, on behalf of the United States, signed a document supposedly drafted by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, but actually prepared by Henry Kissinger and his soviet comrades.
The Helsinki Declaration is nothing less than a complete and shameful betrayal of Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe. It sanctions the rape of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the other Soviet satellites. It puts the U.S. stamp of approval on the Communist conquest of one-half of Europe.
Meanwhile, Dr. Kissinger has managed to eliminate any opposition within the Executive Branch to his plans for a New World Order. And he is not always very subtle about it. When Admiral Zumwalt was invited to appear on "Meet The Press" two years ago [1975], Kissinger (operating through Defense Secretary James Schlesinger) ordered the Admiral not to participate in the panel show.
When Zumwalt pointed out that he had retired from the government and was not subject to Dr. K.'s commands, Henry the Knife then threatened to have him court-martialed. A compromise was finally reached, permitting Zumwalt to appear as scheduled, so long as he promised not to discuss the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks.
Schlesinger himself did not last long enough at the Pentagon to gain any seniority. He was fired by President Ford in November 1975 because of "growing tensions" between himself and the Secretary of State. A few days later, Kissinger's satisfied smirk must have spread when he learned that Lt. Gen. Daniel O. Graham, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, had also submitted his resignation.
While neither Schlesinger or Graham could be described as hard-nosed conservatives, both men had expressed serious reservations about detente, and both men were openly alarmed about the Soviets' massive military build-up. But apparently the watchword in Washington is, "You don't have to agree with everything Super K does; just don't disagree with anything!"
Meanwhile, the Soviets continue to increase their military posture at a furious pace. Malcolm R. currie, a director of research for the Defense Department, told a Senate Committee in February 1976 that the Communists have launched "a large and determined effort, and the Soviets are inexorably increasing their level of technology. Currie cited the following Soviet gains during the past year:
In other words, while the United States has stood still (and in some areas has slipped backwards), the Soviets have been aggressively moving forward. The situation has become so critical that the normally restrained writing team of Admiral Chester Ward and Phyllis Schlafly have accused Henry Kissinger of making "the entire population of the United States hostages to the Kremlin".
Unless our egotistical and surrender-prone Secretary of State is stopped, they warn, "We will have been set up for mass murder on a scale never before witnessed in the history of the world."
Although we certainly do not question the facts that Admiral Ward and Mrs. Schlafly have assembled, we do not share their conclusions. While it is possible that Henry the K is setting us up for nuclear annihilation, we think it is far more probable that the real purpose is not nuclear bombs, but nuclear blackmail.
Why is the United States being disarmed? The answer, we believe, is that the way is being prepared for a New World Order ultimatum. It will be hailed as "the best deal we can get" by Kissinger and the network media boys—who have remained deaf, dumb, and blind while the situation was being set up. The Communists are working hand-in-hand with internationalists in our own country.
When the former are strong enough, thanks to Henry K, the latter (led, not so coincidentally, by Henry K) will insist we must scrap our national sovereignty and merge into a One World Government.
The entire scenario is in keeping with a statement made to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee more than twenty-five years ago by international banker and CFR potentate James Warburg. He said, "We will have world government whether or not you like it—by conquest or consent."
The Shadow Government has been working for just such a conclusion to American independence for many years. It would not be accurate to blame Henry Kissinger for creating all of these policies; he has simply been the master architect in finalizing the destruction of our defensive capability. He is the undisputed champion of creating, crafting and selling the disarmament of the United States in what he believes will be the final period of our independence.
But disarming the United States is only half of the plot. Just as significant, and even less publicized, is the lengthy history of Western aid to the Soviet Union, which began almost as soon as the Bolsheviks seized power. It is not the purpose of this volume to substantiate how the West, particularly the United States, literally has created the industrial-military complex of the Soviet Union.
The fascinating, almost unbelievable saga has been chronicled elsewhere. (See "Building the Big Red Machine" in the author's previous book, The Rockefeller File, as well as the series of important studies on this subject by Professor Antony C. Sutton.)
The point was driven home with cruel irony during the Vietnam War, when the Soviet bloc provided 80 percent of the war materials for North Vietnam—materials that were used against Americans and South Vietnamese in the field at the very time American supplies were being unloaded at Soviet ports and the U.S. was helping construct the largest truck-building complex in the world in Russia!
Thousands of items with strategic applications were cleared for shipment to the Communists while U.S. credits, subsidized by taxpayers, financed the purchases.
The Soviet Union, in the era of detente as before, has needed Western technology and Western foodstuffs to survive. It has been getting both, largely through the ingenious method of having the U.S. taxpayers finance the long-term, low-interest loans necessary so the Russians could purchase such goods.
The Export-Import Bank (ExIM) has loaned the Soviets hundreds of millions of dollars and Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia has warned, "It appears that loans in the billions are in the works".
While Americans must pay ten percent, twelve percent, or more for loans, Exlm lends the Reds money at six percent interest. The banks handling the deals, and the businessmen selling the goods, make a windfall, but it is the American citizens ultimately who pay the cost. The industrialization of Communist Russia has, in no small part, been financed by U.S. taxpayers precisely in this fashion.
The fact that the Soviet Union exceeds the U.S. in steel output is in no small part due to the investments there by U.S. and other Free World firms. The largest iron and steel plant in the world was built in the U.S.S.R. by the American-based McKee Corporation. The Soviet Union is now the world's major producer of oil, due to the development of the Russian oil and gas potential by Western, primarily American, interests.
During the past three years, while Soviet-supplied forces were completing their conquest of Southeast Asia, the United States was building the largest truck factory in the world—on the Kama River in Russia. During the same time we were financing, building and equipping the largest tanker shipyard in the world. . . on the Black Sea; the largest fertilizer complex in the world. . . on the Volga River; and a very large chemical plant—at Severondenetz.
In April 1975 the Ford Administration actually licensed the sale to the Soviet Union of eleven advanced-design giant IBM computers. Within days of this deal, it was announced that a bank consortium (made up of the cream of CFR-connected wheelers and dealers) was lending the Soviet Union $250 million "with no strings attached to the loan".
And that very same day. Bank of America announced it had another syndicate ready to lend the U.S.S.R. $500 million. Do you begin to detect a pattern in all of this?
Secretary of State Kissinger acknowledged the obvious last year when he said that "the Soviet Union is much more interested in credits than in trade, because for the next five years Russia will have little to give in reciprocal trade".
What Henry didn't way was that, given past performances, the Soviet Union had everything to gain and nothing to lose by such deals. After all, it was detente-minded boys in the State Department who earlier had agreed to allow the Soviets to pay off an $11 billion World War II Fend-Fease debt for a mere $722 million, or seven cents on the dollar. True to form, the Communists paid only $32 million, then reneged on the rest.
Admiral Elmo zumwalt has described the situation in this hardly flattering but frankly accurate passage:
"The Soviets see the United States right now as a great placid bovine chewing its cud in the sun and with two huge udders extended to them, one labeled grain and the other labeled technology. It stands there letting itself be milked dry, twitching its tail contentedly, too lazy and too placid to notice."
Of the myriad deals Herr Kissinger has arranged for his Soviet friends in the past eight years, only one almost became a public scandal. It wasn't all that more important than the Secretary's other pacts and promises, it was just a lot more obvious.
We're referring, of course, to the "great grain robbery" of 1972. It was a performance that made the Brink's robbery seem like a kindergarten heist of four marbles and one slightly licked lollipop.
Before most Americans knew what was happening, the Soviets had purchased a whopping twenty-five percent of the U.S. wheat crop at bargain-basement prices. The sale created a wheat shortage in the United States, with the result that bread prices suddenly shot through the ceiling. But that was just part of the story. We financed the loan, so the Soviets could make the purchase, and we also subsidized the freight to get the grain to them.
Kissinger followed up this Soviet success with a five-year agreement, signed in October 1975, which entitles the Soviets to buy a minimum of six million metric tons of U.S. grain annually, beginning with the 1976 crop year. It is a "swap deal"—we are supposed to keep the usually empty Soviet larder stocked, while in return the Soviets will sell us ten million metric tons of oil and oil products each year.
Part of the deal allows the Russians to buy up to seven million more tons of U.S. grain before the five-year agreement takes effect in the fall of 1976. Oren Staley, President of the national Farmers Organization, called the deal an "outrageous interference with American farmers' free markets." Staley said the agreement represented "government dictatorship with a vengeance" and added that American farmers have been "lied to, betrayed and sold down the river".
While Russia was placing orders for American wheat, American corn, and American rice, food prices in the U.S. were rising 29 percent in two years. Under the circumstances, it was indeed strange to see Kissinger and his cronies begging the Communists to cart away American grain.
But the madness of detente did not stop there. By 1975 it reached such ridiculous extremes as the U.S. government authorizing a private American firm to sell two sets of plans for a sophisticated new cargo ship to the Soviets for $500,000 each—after the Defense Department had invested $57.5 million in the project. And on and on it goes.
Our Kissinger-arranged deals with Red China are cut from the same cloth as our "trade" with the Soviet bloc; we have made numerous concessions and have asked for none in return.
What does the building of the Big Red Machine in the Soviet Union and Red China mean? Constructing some of the world's largest factories for the Soviet Union, and shipping them the most sophisticated U.S. technology and equipment, has many implications.
Professor Antony Sutton, the worlds' foremost expert on the use of Western technology to develop the Soviet Union, has written an entire book on this subject under the provocative but very deliberate title, National Suicide.
The military potential of the industrial plants which we are building for the Soviets should be obvious to anyone. Trucks, aircraft, oil, steel, petro-chemicals, aluminum, computers—these are the very sinews of a military-industrial complex. These factories, the product of American genius and financed by American capital, could have been built in the United States. Instead, they are constructed at U.S. taxpayers' expense in the Soviet Union—a nation whose masters still keep millions in concentration camps and who have sworn to bury us.
Another important thing to remember is the strong possibility that Russian factories using American capital and American technology will, with Soviet slave labor, produce goods which will undersell those produced by American labor in world markets. Just as many thousands of Americans have already lost their jobs to foreign labor working in European and Asian factories constructed with American foreign aid.
This point has not been lost on AFL-CIO chieftain George Meany, who succinctly summed up his feelings about the continuing giveaway of grain, technology, defense, secrets, and jobs:
"We don't want any part of it. We're not interested in seeing cheap goods made by Soviet slave labor pour into this country. We are not interested in seeing American workers displaced by slave labor."
Testifying at a Congressional hearing on detente, Meany also assailed the Export-Import Bank for its giveaway credit rates:
"What American can get a loan at six percent? This isn't trade. This is a welfare program for Russia."
But as important as jobs are, there is even a more important aspect to our aid to the Communists. At stake is the very survival of our freedom and independence.
Professor Sutton has assembled an abundance of evidence which nobody has even attempted to refute. First, he has shown that Communism is a stagnant system incapable of innovation or high productivity. Its survival, even a a subsistence level for its captives, has required regular transfusions of capital and technology. Without aid from the West, the Soviet Union would have long since collapsed.
The Soviet Union was first saved by Herbert Hoover with food. Next came Lenin's New Economic Plan, which let the super-capitalists back into Russia. This was followed by FDR's diplomatic recognition of Russia, which allowed the Soviets to obtain desperately needed credits. World War II turned on the $11 billion Lend-Lease spigot.
Following the war, Russia was allowed to denude much of Germany of factories and scientists. During the Kennedy Administration we started providing wheat for hungry Soviet factory workers During the Vietnam War, America shipped vital supplies to the East European bloc, which was providing North Vietnam with the war equipment to kill our own soldiers. Now we are supplying the world's largest truck factory, extremely sophisticated computers, and a cornucopia of other manufacturing technology.
To cap this incredible recitation, the Wall Street Journal of April 15, 1975, headlined: "U.S. Quietly Allows Uranium Shipments to Soviet Union for Processing Into Fuel." Is that unbelievable?
Perhaps the most eloquent opponent of detente is the exiled Soviet author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. He has asked:
"What does the spirit of Helsinki and the spirit of detente mean for us within the Soviet Union? The strengthening of totalitarianism. What seems to you to be a milder atmosphere is for us the strengthening of totalitarianism."
And he adds:
"You think that this a a respite, but it is an imaginary respite. It's a respite before destruction. As for us, we have no respite at all. We're being strangled even more, with greater determination. . . "
Solzhenitsyn visited the United States in 1975. He was here at the very time of the Soviet-American joint space flight and the "handshake in space". His every word, both spoken and written, his very presence branded as a lie the Kissinger-Rockefeller-CFR policies. A man who could testify from first-hand experience in the Gulag Archipelago that Communism was not mellowing was a distinct embarrassment to the Washington Establishment.
Secretary Kissinger advised President Ford that Solzhenitsyn's views endangered the stable relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. Henry the K—who had smilingly shaken hands with the most vicious tyrants and bloodiest murderers in history—refused to meet the Nobel Laureate. Henry the Knife advised the President not to meet with him, either, so the White House snubbed this distinguished champion of freedom.
The Kissinger-Ford team ignored a man who supports traditional American principles, for the sake of some "allies" who have sworn they will bury us.
And once again we must ask, whose side is Henry on, anyway?