Myth vs. Facts: John Birch Society called President Dwight Eisenhower a Communist

[Earl Sinclair]

All one has to do is look at the final days of General Patton.

Patton knew the communist threat, and he also knew that with soldiers in Germany NOW, pushing the Soviet Union backwards would have eliminated much of the cold war.

Eisenhower not only disagreed with him, he fired him. So then, Patton was planning on retiring and taking his message directly to the American people.

One week later, he was ambushed in a car, and killed by a member of the OSI.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-new-book.html

Wild Bill Donavan of course, moved on later to help form the CIA, and not 20 years later, the evolved agency probably had a hand in assasinating JFK.

And, Patton NEEDED to be fired. Eisenhower was following the instructions of HIS commander - Harry Truman, who said the war was over, and did NOT want to continue hostilities.

Patton, in retrospect, may have been "right" but his method to fix the problem was wrong.



Earl

[Slide Rule]

Say what you will about the patriot Joe McCarthy. He pointed out that the government was infested with Communists. What Eisenhower could not stand was the speech that McCarthy gave in the Senate.

I recommend to the historians in the group to borrow a copy from the World Catalog at your library of

Major Speeches And Debates Of Senator Joe McCarthy,
Delivered In The United States Senate In 1950 – 1951, Reprinted from the Congressional Record

An outstanding read.

Pages 215 through 309
June 14, 1951, America’s Retreat From Victory; the Story of General George C. Marshall. 60,000 words.

Marshall had a friend in Eisenhower, and McCarthys attack on Marshall was the last straw.

Instead of eliminating Communists either directly or discretely Eisenhower let them be. He also impeded McCarthy from that task. From this alone, letting personal feelings enter and allowing the national security to suffer, removes Eisenhower from the good guys list.

He was a great General, but as for president, mediocre at best.

PS
On page 80 there is quite an effective put down of the Senator from Minnesota. Humphrey.

And an interesting letter to President Eisenhower about Communists.

July 12, 1950.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President: Today American boys lie dead in the month of Korean valleys. Some have their hands tied behind their back, their faces shot away by communist machine guns.

They are dead today not because they were less brave or had less to fight for them the North Korean Communists who manned those machine guns, but because the program adopted by this Congress to avoid just such a war in Korea, and signed into law by you, Mr. President, was sabotaged.

Last year Congress voted money to fortify South Korea and to help anti-Communist forces in the entire Asiatic area. One item of $75,000,000 was appropriated: another of $27,600,000; another of $10,300,000.

As you and all of us know, the program for military aid to South Korea was sabotaged to the extent that only $52,000 worth of wire odd of the above millions appropriated was sent to Korea in which to stem the threatened onslaught of Communist planes, tanks, artillery, etc.

While the Russians were sending to North Korea, tanks, artillery, and planes, our State Department’s “experts” on the far east were sabotaging our program to militarily aid the Korean Republic, and Secretary of State Dean Acheson was announcing to the world that we would not aid the South Koreans if they were invaded. We can assume that not only were the north Koreans listing, but Stalin as well.

Two of those State Department experts, Mr. Jessup and his super adviser, Lattimore, were telling the world that Korea did not count in the Far East defenses of democracy. Lattimore, as you will recall, Mr. President, publicly stated that are only problem in Korea was to let her fall without having it appear that we pushed her to her doom.

It does not seem improper, Mr. President, to ask at this time why it is that Mr. Acheson could expedite a $60,000,000 order of guns and bullets for Communist Poland, but did the opposite for the Anti-Communist forces in South Korea.

Obviously, as President, you must rely on the advice of others. Men, both great and small, have been betrayed by advisers in the past. It is understandable that a president can be betrayed by his political friends. But it is not understandable nor excusable if he keeps those political friends in positions of power after they are exposed as betrayers not only of him but of the Nation.

At this time, I would like to bring to your attention documented facts showing how your own well-meaning program to clean the subversives out of government, which program was initiated in 1946, was sabotaged by those advisers whom you apparently still trust. In 1946 the attention of Congress was directed to disloyalty in the government when the Carl Marzani case was broken. As you know, he was one of the top State Department employees convicted of perjury in connection with his communist activities.

In response to the growing demand in Congress at that time, you ordered, and Congress later proved a fragile loyalty program. Eleven million dollars was appropriated to put that program into effect.

The proof of how this program was sabotage is attached hereto in the form of photo stats of sign statements from people who were hired by the State Department to assist in the job -- people who now come forward with nothing to gain and at least one of whom has a job of risk by giving this information.

One of these individual now works for the state Department. Another is a third-year student at Georgetown University; a third is in private industry; a fourth is presently an FBI agent.

You will note that the name and other job information contained in the statement of the State Department employee has been blocked out in the Photostat. This was done because this man gave the statement only on the condition that his name not be used and he got no publicity in connection with their with. However, if you will give me your personal assurance that his job will not be endangered thereby, I am sure I can obtain his consent to let his name be given to you.

Three of the four innocently, as far as they were concerned, took part in a file stripping operation fully described in the statements. Their statements refer to the files as personnel files. These files became the present loyalty files after the loyalty program was put into effect. They were hired by the State Department and paid with public funds to destroy files which had been built up at tremendous cost and labor in order to protect the security of this Nation.

This information is being brought to your personal attention for two specific reasons.

(1) One I started to expose Communists, etc., in the State Department, you condemn to my methods and stated that if I had brought the information to you, you personally would have taken the necessary steps to correct the situation.

I attach we’re to a Photostat of two clippings – 1 from the New York Times, the other from the New York Herald Tribune, quoting Mr. Tydings. The other is a letter from the FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover.

I call your attention to paragraph 2, which reads as follows:

“The Federal Bureau of investigation has made no such examination” and therefore is not in a position to make any statements concerning the completeness or incompleteness of the State Department files.”

( Paragraph omitted.)

For those reasons this material is being presented directly to you Mr. President.

There are those who have made pleas for unity in this time of crisis. I join them in that pleas, but I must define that unity to the point where it will have meaning for those we sent today to Korea to fight and die.

We must all be united in our loyalty to the nation. There is no place in a hot war for men with lukewarm loyalty.

There was never a place for them in the Cold War. But they were there.
Even in normal times, the information given you would be shocking. Today, however, it is doubly shocking because of the disastrous sequence of events in Asia, which today has brought us to the very precipice of defeat by the communist half of the world. It reveals the groundwork laid for keeping and protecting people in the State Department who are unfit to serve this country.

Why would the State Department find it necessary to strip the files unless the information, when placed before the loyalty boards, would have caused the removal of those individuals? The stripping was successful to the extent that this nation was and is being betrayed. For proof you need merely look upon the chain of events which have led to repeated disaster for the United States and victory for Russia and Asia.

Today, Korea is the crisis area. Where will it be tomorrow is the same man act as your visor’s and mold your thinking, Mr. President?

The magnitude of this file stripping operation is better understood when you realize that it took six months to strip the State Department files of information on the disloyal, the bad security risk, the fellow travelers, and the traders, and it took a crew of eight to do the job.

You will note that the statement of one of the young men who took no part in file stripping job, but who had the task of making cut cards on the clean files, shows that he was advised that State Department employees were allowed to inspect and rifle their own files.

If this was an accepted procedure during the cold war, what is now being done in fraud and deceit. Now that the real day for the traders to do their work is at hand?

Someone in the State Department ordered the file stripped. Who was he? He must be found, Mr. President. And when found, you decide how close he is to the top of the list of those who pledge their allegiance to the Soviet Union. You decide whether he is merely a dupe or guilty of high treason.

There are those who say we should not now spend time searching for those responsible for the disasters of the past few years. Common horse sense dictates, however, that in order to protect America in the critical weeks months and years ahead we must determine who in positions of trust seek to betray us, and then act to get them out of the government. If allowed to remain they will undoubtedly tip the scales for disaster and against victory for this nation.

Respectfully yours,

Joe McCarthy

[jed turtle]

thanks SlideRule. excellent find!

clearly Joe McCarthy was indeed a Patriot and as info like this comes out, it becomes more clear that Eisenhower was merely a cog in the wheel of the master plan of the Rockefellahs and Friends...

it also clearly shows how the State Department, then and now, is entirely in the thrall of the CFR.

[Slide Rule]

Thanks Jed. I also recommend

Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies by M. Stanton Evans

The most definitive and recent book on the subject of McCarthy. I spoke with Stan at length, about 6 hours, at the Cold War Seminar at Hillsdale College two years ago. Stan Evans is a remarkable man. If you read only one McCarthy book. This is it.

as well as:
Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism by Ann Coulter

Not definitive but a good read if you like wit. Actually it is a step above her other works.

and finally, the first and timely original:
McCarthy And His Enemies by L. Brent Bozell

There are many authors of this book, including WF Buckley. Note that Stan Evans also contributed to this work. It was outstanding considering access of information was restricted.

[jimmythebee]

great info on this thread

[FrankRep]

Fox News host Glenn Beck aired an extraordinary program June 24 explaining how author M. Stanton Evans exposed how the facts released from the files of the FBI and the World War II-era Office of Strategic Services over the past two decades have vindicated the controversial charges of communism in the U.S. State Department by Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Glenn Beck: History Vindicated Joe McCarthy


Thomas R. Eddlem | The New American
25 June 2010

[CassiusKing]

Poor Glenn Beck.

He was riding so high just 16 months ago but then he did the first national TV special on Commie genocide and the 1933 Holodomor in Ukraine.

The left made him pay dearly for that.

[AWM]

Poor Glenn Beck.

He was riding so high just 16 months ago but then he did the first national TV special on Commie genocide and the 1933 Holodomor in Ukraine.

The left made him pay dearly for that.

Well they haven't killed him yet!

[rondaben]

Well they haven't killed him yet!

Why would they?

He is doing yeoman's work for them.

[ernie1241]

John Birch Society - Myth vs. Facts


Myth:

JBS Founder Robert Welch called President Dwight Eisenhower a Communist

Fact:

Originally detailing some of Pres. Eisenhower's history in a 1954 letter sent privately to a few friends, Mr. Welch's research grew over several years into a full-length book entitled The Politician (1963). Once the book was published, its very existence was ignored while critics continued to dwell on only one of several possible conclusions offered by Mr. Welch.

The book provides 300 pages and 150 pages of footnotes and documentation, including covering one of Mr. Eisenhower's most immoral and despicable acts of authorizing "Operation Keelhaul"; which used American soldiers to repatriate anti-communist Poles to their certain death or torture. Read the book for yourself and discover what Mr. Welch did say and learn the role played by Mr. Eisenhower over his many years as one of our nation's military and political leaders.

====



Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson: Robert Welch was Right about Eisenhower

16 November 2010 | A confidential letter from Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson said John Birch Society founder Robert Welch was right about the tragic effect of Eisenhower's policies toward Communism.

Like many Birch Society members (or sympathizers) Frank Rep is profoundly ignorant about what Robert Welch wrote concerning Dwight D. Eisenhower.

We can safely deduce that FrankRep has never spent so much as one minute independently researching the actual history about this matter. Instead, Frank just parrots (without exception) everything which the Birch Society has spoon-fed over the years to gullible individuals (like Frank).

Frank contends that there were "several possible conclusions" proposed by Robert Welch. That is entirely false. If Frank was familiar with only the chapter titles of The Politician he would understand that the chapter in which Welch presents his conclusion is entitled "The Word Is Treason".

Then Frank tells us: "The John Birch Society never claimed Eisenhower was a Communist." Another utter falsehood!

Robert Welch used copies of the 1958 unpublished version of The Politician as a recruitment tool for the JBS!!

(1) For example: By letter dated 7/16/59 Welch sent a letter to Dr. Hedwig Kuhn of Hammond Indiana. Welch described The Politician to Dr. Kuhn with these words:

“The manuscript will not really give you any information concerning the John Birch Society, concerning which Mr. Carto has written you for me, but will at least give both you and Mr. Mitchell a better understanding of how serious is the danger we face, and how far advanced the conspiracy threatening us, as we see it. And you will then find that The John Birch Society is a movement, started quietly by this writer with a small group of leading industrialists who met with me in Indianapolis last December, for the purpose of building strength and understanding to combat this conspiracy – while avoiding publicity to the fullest extent possible, because creating noise is no part of our intention.”

Welch's reference above to "as we see it" refers to the Birch Society. In other words: read and believe the arguments made in The Politician (because it provides the "understanding" required to "combat this conspiracy" ---and then join the JBS to do something about it!

(2) If you doubt the accuracy of what I just presented, would you believe explicit statements made by a prominent JBS official in Chicago, i.e. JBS National Council member Stillwell J. Conner?

In September 1960, Naval Intelligence prepared a summary report concerning JBS activities in the Chicago area. Here is the pertinent excerpt from their Report. (Conner's name is mis-spelled as "Connor"].

“Stilwell J. Connor, 6657 N. Sioux Avenue, Chicago, Illinois and his wife have been particularly active Coordinators for the John Birch Society in the Chicago area and specifically at Glenview, Illinois. [Name deleted] of Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church in Glenview has cooperated with Society Coordinators by calling special parish meetings for the purpose of organizing local chapters of the Society and extending the use of church buildings for holding such meetings. One such meeting held on July 11, 1960 attracted about 200 citizens to hear Connor present the views of Robert Welch via sound films and literature. One member of the audience asked about Welch’s book, The Politician. Connor vehemently denied the existence of such a book whereupon the interested spectator produced the book and proceeded to read appropriate quotations for the benefit of Connor and his audience. Connor then admitted the existence of the book but reportedly said that the book was only for those who were properly guided within the Society. Connor reportedly remarked that to make the book available to the general membership without proper guidance would be analogous to permitting a first year medical student attempt to cure cancer. On another occasion a potential recruit of the Society was disillusioned after reading The Politician and expressed her disgust to Connor who cautioned her that if she ever revealed the nature of the book he would promptly discredit her and deny the existence of the book at its contents.” [District Intelligence Office, Ninth Naval District – Chicago IL; 9/16/60 report captioned "Ninth Naval District Subversive Trends of Current Interest, The John Birch Society”, pages 2-3]

(3) The Birch Society DID explicitly endorse The Politician after it was published in 1963. For example:

JBS Bulletin, 09/63:
Robert Welch declared that The Politician "has now proved to be by far the most effective single help to our recruiting efforts."

JBS Bulletin, 6/63
Welch encouraged JBS members to make The Politician "the largest selling book in all history".

AND, in a 8/22/62 letter to Ezra Taft Benson in which he offered to send a copy of the unpublished edition of The Politician to Benson, Mr. Welch wrote to Benson:

"For there are quite a number of outstanding Americans who are among our strongest and most unshakable supporters who had been made so by reading this document; and we have never really had any trouble with, or criticism from, those who have actually read the 'letter' themselves..."

(4) In 2002, the JBS published a new edition of The Politician. This new edition is self-described on the back cover as “the most devastating expose of the last century” because it “tells the bitter, but little known truth” about our postwar history and the back cover statement concludes:

“But most importantly, The Politician exposes that ‘conspiracy of gangsters’ which even now is setting America’s foreign and domestic policy.”

The JBS no longer tries to dissociate itself from the substantive content of Welch’s “private letter” because everything stated in The Politician has ALWAYS been part of official JBS ideology which is why the current 2002 edition is described on the back cover as presenting “the truth” about our postwar history as well as about the Eisenhower Administration’s role in that history.

So the assertion that The Politician was entirely separate from the JBS -- is pure unadulterated fiction created by Welch and the JBS to divert attention from the ACTUAL beliefs of the Society and to minimize adverse publicity.

Robert Welch (and his friends) were acutely aware of the damage that his comments about Eisenhower would have if they became publicly known. For example, in a letter to J.W. Clise of Seattle, Welch wrote:

“Our rather extreme precautions with regard to this document are not due to any worry on my part as to what might happen to myself…But many of my best informed friends feel that having the manuscript get into the wrong hands at the present time might do far more damage than good to the whole anti-Communist cause; whereas, by distributing it very carefully and quietly to quite a limited number of strongly patriotic leaders, so that the information in this document becomes a background to their own thinking on which their own actions are determined it can do considerable good.” [2/25/59 letter to J.W. Clise, Seattle WA].

Notice, Frank, Welch's observation (again) that the thinking of "patriotic leaders" could be influenced by "the information in this document becomes a background to their own thinking..."

Finally, FrankRep described as "MYTH" the notion that "JBS Founder Robert Welch called President Dwight Eisenhower a Communist."

There are three possible explanations for Frank's use of the word "myth":

(1) Frank does not know the definition of the word myth, i.e.
"something that people wrongly believe to be true" OR

(2) Frank is profoundly ignorant about the facts regarding this matter OR

(3) Frank does know the facts but he is deliberately misrepresenting them

First, by way of preface, let’s begin with a comment made by Robert Welch in The Politician, Chapter 16, which discusses Eisenhower “associates and appointments” (pages 227-228 of the unpublished version and page 214 of the 2002 published edition):

Even Welch acknowledges the cumulative effect of all his statements, innuendos, and insinuations in Chapter 16 when he writes:

“So we appear to be calling almost everybody a Communist, merely because we have no reason to be mentioning the good men in Washington, in all branches of the government, who have no Communist sympathies whatever.”

So, the first question for Frank is:

WHY did Welch acknowledge that the preceding 15 chapters made it appear that “we appear to be calling almost everybody a Communist”? Whom, precisely, does Frank think Welch was referring to as “a Communist”?

As we keep that in mind, let’s also remember that the title of the next chapter clarifies Welch’s intent with respect to the thrust of his argument as contained in the first 16 chapters.

Chapter 17 is entitled: “The Word Is Treason”.

So question #2 for Frank is:

WHOM, precisely, did Welch have in mind as the object or focus of his 16 lengthy chapters and whom, precisely, did Welch build a case against which was intended to ultimately be captured by the chapter entitled “The Word is Treason”?

Question #3 for Frank:

What is YOUR definition of the word “treason”?

Here are two contemporary standard dictionary definitions:

noun: disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
noun: an act of deliberate betrayal

Going back to the 1828 Webster’s dictionary, the definition is amplified as follows:

“Treason is the highest crime of a civil nature of which a man can be guilty. Its signification is different in different countries. In general, it is the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance, or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power…In the United States, treason is confined to the actual levying of war against the United States, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

Finally, let’s keep in mind Welch’s admission to his National Council in January 1960, that, in his scheme of things, “it makes no practical difference” to distinguish between

(a) “an actual Communist”
(b) “a Communist sympathizer”
(c) “a Communist agent”

So question #4 for Frank is:

What did Robert Welch mean by his use of the phrase “no practical difference”?

On page 278 of the 1963 published edition of The Politician, there is a footnote #2 (page 472, note #543 in the 2002 edition) and its text appears on pages cxxxviii–cxxxix at the back of the 1963 edition. That text is as follows:

“At this point in the original manuscript, there was one paragraph in which I expressed my own personal belief as to the most likely explanation of the events and actions with this document had tried to bring into focus. In a confidential letter, neither published nor offered for sale and restricted to friends who were expected to respect the confidence but offer me in exchange their own points of view, this seemed entirely permissible and proper. It does not seem so for an edition of the letter that is now to be published and given, probably, fairly wide distribution. So that paragraph, and two explanatory paragraphs, connected with it, have been omitted here. And the reader is left entirely free to draw his own conclusions.”

So question #5 for Frank:

If, as many Birchers claim, Mr. Welch’s personal evaluation of President Eisenhower was limited to 3 relatively benign options which are usually summarized as “stupid”, “opportunist” or “instrument” – then WHAT, specifically, was Welch referring to as “my own personal belief as to the most likely explanation of the events and actions” which Welch thought had to be EXPUNGED from the published version of The Politician?

Let us now consider how Welch actually described President Eisenhower.

First, let us quickly dispose of the falsehood that Welch proposed a benign interpretation of Ike’s motives.

On page 278 of the published version of The Politician, Welch summarizes, from his perspective, the only two possible interpretations regarding Eisenhower:

“The role he has played, as described in all the pages above, would fit just as well into one theory as the other; that he is a mere stooge, or that he is a Communist assigned the specific job of being a political front man.”

Oxford English Dictionary definition of “stooge”:

“A person whose function is merely to carry out another’s directions; an unquestioningly loyal or obsequious subordinate, a lackey; a person used as an instrument by someone behind the scenes, a cat’s paw"

On page 279 of The Politician, Welch discusses the 3 stages by which Communists came to control the U.S. Presidency.

In stages 1 and 2, FDR and Truman were “used” by Communists. In Truman’s case, according to Welch, he was used “with his knowledge and acquiescence, as the price he consciously paid for their making him President.”

Then, with respect to Ike,

“In the third stage the Communists have installed in the Presidency a man who, for whatever reasons, appears intentionally to be carrying forward Communist aims…With regard to this third man, Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason.” …

The quote above is from page 279 of the 1963 published edition of The Politician. However, the original formulation of this comment from the unpublished 1950’s manuscript of The Politician is as follows:

"In the third stage, in my own firm opinion, the Communists have one of their own actually in the Presidency. For this third man, Eisenhower, there is only one possible word to describe his purposes and his actions. That word is treason." [The Politician, unpublished version, page 268.].

Obviously, that is why Welch decided to entitle Chapter 17, “The Word Is Treason”.

There are many other passages in both the published and unpublished versions of The Politician wherein Welch makes clear that he considered Eisenhower a Communist traitor.

Below I quote a few examples.

In discussing Eisenhower’s appointment of Philip C. Jessup, Robert Welch refers to Eisenhower as “he and his fellow Communists” [The Politician, unpublished version, page 214]

In discussing Eisenhower’s appointment of James B. Conant, Robert Welch refers to “the appointment of Conant…made by a Communist President…” [The Politician, unpublished version, page 221]

and

“In my opinion the chances are very strong that Milton Eisenhower is actually Dwight Eisenhower’s superior and boss within the Communist Party.” [The Politician, unpublished version, page 210]

“We think that an objective survey of Eisenhower’s associates and appointments shows clever Communist brains, aided by willing Communist hands, always at work to give the Communists more power, and to weaken the anti-Communist resistance.” [The Politician, unpublished version, page 239]

“For Eisenhower and his Communist bosses and their pro-Communist appointees are gradually taking over our whole government right under the noses of the American people.” [The Politician, unpublished version, page 238-239]

Welch refers to Eisenhower’s actions in Europe which “show his sympathies with the Communist cause and friendship for the Kremlin tyrants…” [The Politician, unpublished version, page 263]

“For the sake of honesty, however, I want to confess here my own conviction that Eisenhower’s motivation is more ideological than opportunistic. Or, to put it bluntly, I personally think that he has been sympathetic to ultimate Communist aims, realistically willing to use Communist means to help them achieve their goals, knowingly accepting and abiding by Communist orders, and consciously serving the Communist conspiracy for all of his adult life.” [The Politician, unpublished version, page 266]

“But my firm belief that Dwight Eisenhower is a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy is based on an accumulation of detailed evidence so extensive and so palpable that it seems to me to put this conviction beyond any reasonable doubt.” [The Politician, unpublished version, page 267]

Lastly, there is this telling comment:

“To paraphrase Elizabeth Churchill Brown, ‘the only enemies the American people have to fear are the enemies in their midst’. The most conspicuous and injurious of these enemies today, I believe, is named Dwight David Eisenhower. He is either a willing agent, or an integral and important part, of a conspiracy of gangsters determined to rule the world at any cost.” … [The Politician, published version, page 291]

Another question for Frank:

I copy below the typical definition of the word “enemy”.

In what context would one use such words as “treason”, “enemy” and “gangsters” to describe the duly elected President of our country?

ENEMY: “One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.”

One final question for Frank:

Substitute YOUR name for every instance in my message where I quoted Welch's statements about Eisenhower.

THEN tell us with a straight face:

How would YOU interpret a publication which linked YOUR name to words like "enemy", "traitor", "treason", "Communist" and "serving the Communist conspiracy for all of his adult life."

Anyone interested in seeing scanned copies of pages from the original unpublished edition of The Politician containing Welch's most defamatory remarks about Eisenhower should review my JBS Report here:
https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/jbs-1

Questions or comments may be sent to: ernie1241@aol.com